As I have argued at length in Surprised by Hope, we are not saved from the world of creation, but saved for the world of creation (Romans 8.18-26). Humans were made to take care of God's wonderful world, and it is not too strong to say that the reason God saves humans is not simply that he loves them for themselves but that he loves them for what they truly are - his pro-creators, his stewards, his vice-regents over creation...
'Salvation' is from death itself, and all that leads to it and shares its destructive character (tribulation, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, weaponry) and all the powers that use these things to oppress humans and deface God's world. 'Salvation' does not mean 'dying and going to heaven', as so many Western Christians have supposed for so long. If your body dies and your soul goes into a disembodied immortality, you have not been rescued from death; you have, quite simply, died.
That is why resurrection means what it means: it is not a bizarre miracle, but the very centre of God's plan and purpose. God will renew the whole creation, and raise his people to new bodily life to share his rule over his world. That is 'what the whole world's waiting for' (Romans 8.19).
- N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
link: colluding with vs conquering (9 feb 09)
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Jesus and the victory of God
John Piper is rightly concerned to safeguard the great Christian truth that when someone is 'in Christ' God sees them, from that moment on, in the light of what is true of Christ. But, in line with some (though by no means all) of the Protestant Reformers and their successors, he insists on arriving at this conclusion by the route of supposing that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ - his 'active obedience' as opposed to the 'passive obedience' of his death on the cross - is the ground of this security. Jesus has 'fulfilled the law', and thus amassed a treasury of law-based 'righteousness', which we sinners, having no 'righteousness' of our own, no store of legal merit, no treasury of good works, can shelter within. I want to say, as clearly as I can, to Piper and those who have followed him: this is, theologically and exegetically, a blind alley - but you can get the result you want by a genuinely Pauline route if you pay attention to what is happening here in Romans 6. Three points are vital here.
First, there is no suggestion that when Paul speaks of the 'obedience' of Jesus Christ he refers to his moral uprightness, still less, more specifically, his obedience to the Law of Moses. As we saw in Romans 5, the 'obedience' of Jesus (5.19, with cross-reference to Philippians 2.8) refers back, in line with the 'obedience' of the Isaianic servant, to the achievement of his death. The law arrives as an extra on the stage (5.20), adding a new spin to the whole process but not providing the foundation for a theology of Jesus' supposed righteousness-earning 'active obedience'.
Second, Paul's entire understanding of the Mosaic law is that it never was intended as a ladder of good works up which one might climb to earn the status of 'righteousness'. It was given, yes, as the way of life (7.10), but it was the way of life for a people already redeemed. Let's sharpen this up: God did not say to Israel in Egypt, 'Here is my Torah; if you keep it perfectly for a year or two, then I will liberate you from your slavery,' but 'I am liberating you now because I promised Abraham I would do so; when, and only when, I have done so, I will give you the way of life that you will need for when you come into your promised land.'
This narrative sequence is of enormous importance when we come, as we shortly will, to the outworking of justification in Romans 8. Yes, Israel several times wanted to go back to Egypt, because it was easier to live in slavery than to walk through the wilderness with God and his law. Yes, Israel's rebellion and idolatry in the wilderness did threaten to forfeit the promised inheritance - but God's grace (and Moses' prayers) overcame that as well. Yes, the Mosaic law continued (within the narrative of Scripture as it stands) to warn successive generations that they must make real for themselves that freedom from slavery and idolatry that was God's gift by grace in fulfillment of promise. And of course, later on, the worst that God could threaten was that Israel would lose the promised land, would be sent either back to Egypt or off to Babylon. But the fact remains that the Torah, the Mosaic law, was never given or intended as a means whereby either an individual or the nation as a whole might, through obedience, earn liberation from slavery, redemption, rescue, salvation, 'righteousness' or whatever else. The gift always preceded the obligation. That is how Israel's covenant theology worked.
It is therefore a straightforward category mistake, however venerable within some Reformed traditions including part of my own, to suppose that Jesus 'obeyed the law' and so obtained 'righteousness' which could be reckoned to those who believe in him. To think that way is to concede, after all, that 'legalism' was true after all - with Jesus as the ultimate legalist. At this point, Reformed theology lost its nerve. It should have continued the critique all the way through: 'legalism' itself was never the point, not for us, not for Israel, not for Jesus.
Third, have we thus abandoned the wonderful good news of the gospel? By no means. Paul has a different way, a far more biblical way, of arriving at the desired conclusion. It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about. Paul does not say, 'I am in Christ; Christ has obeyed the Torah; therefore God regards me as though I had obeyed the Torah.' He says: 'I am in Christ; Christ has died and been raised; therefore God regards me - and I must learn to regard myself - as someone who has died to sin and been raised to newness of life.'
The answer he gives to the opening question of chapter 6 is an answer about status. Jesus' death and resurrection is the great Passover (1 Corinthians 5.7), the moment when, and the means by which, we are set free from the slavery of sin once and for all. The challenge to the believer - indeed, one might almost say the challenge of learning to believe at all - is to 'reckon' that this is true, that one has indeed left behind the state of slavery, that one really has come now to stand on resurrection ground (6.6-11). All that the supposed doctrine of the 'imputed righteousness of Christ' has to offer is offered instead by Paul under this rubric, on these terms, and within this covenantal framework.
I cannot stress too strongly the point of principle. We must read Scripture in its own way and through its own lenses, instead of imposing on it a framework of doctrine, however pastorally helpful it may appear, which is derived from somewhere else. There are many things which are pastorally helpful in the short or medium term which are not in fact grounded on the deepest possible reading of Scripture. That is simply a testimony to the grace of God: we don't have to get everything right before anything can work! But if the church is to be built up and nurtured in Scripture it must be semper reformanda, submitting all its traditions to the word of God. And when we bring the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness' to Paul, we find that he achieves what the doctrine wants to achieve, but by a radically different route. In fact, he achieves more. To know that one has died and been raised is far, far more pastorally significant than to know that one has, vicariously, fulfilled the Torah.
- N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
First, there is no suggestion that when Paul speaks of the 'obedience' of Jesus Christ he refers to his moral uprightness, still less, more specifically, his obedience to the Law of Moses. As we saw in Romans 5, the 'obedience' of Jesus (5.19, with cross-reference to Philippians 2.8) refers back, in line with the 'obedience' of the Isaianic servant, to the achievement of his death. The law arrives as an extra on the stage (5.20), adding a new spin to the whole process but not providing the foundation for a theology of Jesus' supposed righteousness-earning 'active obedience'.
Second, Paul's entire understanding of the Mosaic law is that it never was intended as a ladder of good works up which one might climb to earn the status of 'righteousness'. It was given, yes, as the way of life (7.10), but it was the way of life for a people already redeemed. Let's sharpen this up: God did not say to Israel in Egypt, 'Here is my Torah; if you keep it perfectly for a year or two, then I will liberate you from your slavery,' but 'I am liberating you now because I promised Abraham I would do so; when, and only when, I have done so, I will give you the way of life that you will need for when you come into your promised land.'
This narrative sequence is of enormous importance when we come, as we shortly will, to the outworking of justification in Romans 8. Yes, Israel several times wanted to go back to Egypt, because it was easier to live in slavery than to walk through the wilderness with God and his law. Yes, Israel's rebellion and idolatry in the wilderness did threaten to forfeit the promised inheritance - but God's grace (and Moses' prayers) overcame that as well. Yes, the Mosaic law continued (within the narrative of Scripture as it stands) to warn successive generations that they must make real for themselves that freedom from slavery and idolatry that was God's gift by grace in fulfillment of promise. And of course, later on, the worst that God could threaten was that Israel would lose the promised land, would be sent either back to Egypt or off to Babylon. But the fact remains that the Torah, the Mosaic law, was never given or intended as a means whereby either an individual or the nation as a whole might, through obedience, earn liberation from slavery, redemption, rescue, salvation, 'righteousness' or whatever else. The gift always preceded the obligation. That is how Israel's covenant theology worked.
It is therefore a straightforward category mistake, however venerable within some Reformed traditions including part of my own, to suppose that Jesus 'obeyed the law' and so obtained 'righteousness' which could be reckoned to those who believe in him. To think that way is to concede, after all, that 'legalism' was true after all - with Jesus as the ultimate legalist. At this point, Reformed theology lost its nerve. It should have continued the critique all the way through: 'legalism' itself was never the point, not for us, not for Israel, not for Jesus.
Third, have we thus abandoned the wonderful good news of the gospel? By no means. Paul has a different way, a far more biblical way, of arriving at the desired conclusion. It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about. Paul does not say, 'I am in Christ; Christ has obeyed the Torah; therefore God regards me as though I had obeyed the Torah.' He says: 'I am in Christ; Christ has died and been raised; therefore God regards me - and I must learn to regard myself - as someone who has died to sin and been raised to newness of life.'
The answer he gives to the opening question of chapter 6 is an answer about status. Jesus' death and resurrection is the great Passover (1 Corinthians 5.7), the moment when, and the means by which, we are set free from the slavery of sin once and for all. The challenge to the believer - indeed, one might almost say the challenge of learning to believe at all - is to 'reckon' that this is true, that one has indeed left behind the state of slavery, that one really has come now to stand on resurrection ground (6.6-11). All that the supposed doctrine of the 'imputed righteousness of Christ' has to offer is offered instead by Paul under this rubric, on these terms, and within this covenantal framework.
I cannot stress too strongly the point of principle. We must read Scripture in its own way and through its own lenses, instead of imposing on it a framework of doctrine, however pastorally helpful it may appear, which is derived from somewhere else. There are many things which are pastorally helpful in the short or medium term which are not in fact grounded on the deepest possible reading of Scripture. That is simply a testimony to the grace of God: we don't have to get everything right before anything can work! But if the church is to be built up and nurtured in Scripture it must be semper reformanda, submitting all its traditions to the word of God. And when we bring the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness' to Paul, we find that he achieves what the doctrine wants to achieve, but by a radically different route. In fact, he achieves more. To know that one has died and been raised is far, far more pastorally significant than to know that one has, vicariously, fulfilled the Torah.
- N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
justice and love
If we were to come to see justice as, like love, something which involves the transformation of existing interests and the creation of new, shared, interests, then we would be less inclined to judge every case of suffering through justice as a case of unmitigated disaster, and less inclined to think that every such case must unjustify the agent’s commitment to acting justly.
- Susan Mendus*, The Importance of Love in Rawls' Theory of Justice
*my political philosophy lecturer and supervisor at york(!)
from a Rawlsian perspective, justice and love are congruent in spite of suffering. but more than that, justice and love are congruent because of suffering. indeed, God's justice and love are congruent because of Christ's suffering!
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." - John 3:16-18 (NIV)
links: political philosophy and theology (21 nov 08), education sentimentale (11 feb 09), justice and justification (23 feb 09)
- Susan Mendus*, The Importance of Love in Rawls' Theory of Justice
*my political philosophy lecturer and supervisor at york(!)
from a Rawlsian perspective, justice and love are congruent in spite of suffering. but more than that, justice and love are congruent because of suffering. indeed, God's justice and love are congruent because of Christ's suffering!
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." - John 3:16-18 (NIV)
links: political philosophy and theology (21 nov 08), education sentimentale (11 feb 09), justice and justification (23 feb 09)
Friday, 20 March 2009
Paul and Palestinian Judaism
I think context is the crucial issue. In the light of what are we reading this? I'm a person of very limited brain, and I'm going to read Paul in light of what I have studied and what I know - ie. Palestine in the first century and especially first century Judaism. You could ask, "Can he be lifted out of that context?" and I would start stumbling. I do not want to say that what I do is the end all and be all and that everyone who wants to read Paul must do it the way I do it. On the other hand, when I see a sentence that had a perfectly clear meaning in its original context taken out of that context and used some other way in a later context, then I kind of shudder.
With the modern appropriation of Paul, I feel like I'm stuck... Paul was entirely in favour of good works. The works he had in mind, against which he was polemicising in Galatians and Romans, were those works that make you Jewish and distinguished you from Gentiles... Paul loved good deeds! He recommends them to people all the time. But if you take his statement "righteousness by faith, not by works" out of its context - the question whether or not Gentile converts need to be circumcised - if you take it out of that context and put it in another context, I always kind of shudder at this.
- E.P. Sanders, Paul, Context and Interpretation
With the modern appropriation of Paul, I feel like I'm stuck... Paul was entirely in favour of good works. The works he had in mind, against which he was polemicising in Galatians and Romans, were those works that make you Jewish and distinguished you from Gentiles... Paul loved good deeds! He recommends them to people all the time. But if you take his statement "righteousness by faith, not by works" out of its context - the question whether or not Gentile converts need to be circumcised - if you take it out of that context and put it in another context, I always kind of shudder at this.
- E.P. Sanders, Paul, Context and Interpretation
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
more on permitting vs prescribing
Our natural duty to uphold just institutions binds us to comply with unjust laws and policies, or at least not to oppose them by illegal means as long as they do not exceed certain limits of injustice.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
our God-given duty to submit to the state binds us to comply with laws and policies which permit evil, or at least not to oppose them by illegal means as long as they do not prescribe evil.
link: permitting vs prescribing (8 feb 09)
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
our God-given duty to submit to the state binds us to comply with laws and policies which permit evil, or at least not to oppose them by illegal means as long as they do not prescribe evil.
link: permitting vs prescribing (8 feb 09)
Monday, 16 March 2009
separation of church and state
Justice as fairness provides, as we have now seen, strong arguments for an equal liberty of conscience. I shall assume that these arguments can be generalised in suitable ways to support the principle of equal liberty. Therefore the parties have good grounds for adopting this principle. It is obvious that these considerations are also important in making the case for the priority of liberty. From the perspective of the constitutional convention these arguments lead to the choice of a regime guaranteeing moral liberty and freedom of thought and belief, and of religious practice, although these may be regulated as always by the state's interest in public order and security.
The state can favour no particular religion and no penalties or disabilities may be attached to any religious affiliation or lack thereof. The notion of a confessional state is rejected. Instead, particular associations may be freely organised as their members wish, and they may have their own internal life and discipline subject to the restriction that their members have a real choice of whether to continue their affiliation. The law protects the right of sanctuary in the sense that apostasy is not recognised, much less penalised, as a legal offence, any more than is having no religion at all. In these ways the state upholds moral and religious liberty.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Baptists suffered tremendously when the Church and State were merged. In the history of the Baptists, they fought very hard to be freed from the control of the political authorities in matters of their faith. With such a history, Baptists consider the separation of Church and State as very important in their beliefs.
The belief in the separation of Church and State is consistent with the New Testament model (unlike that of the Old Testament). The New Testament churches were separated from the State.
- Thomas C.M. Chin, The Baptist People
The state can favour no particular religion and no penalties or disabilities may be attached to any religious affiliation or lack thereof. The notion of a confessional state is rejected. Instead, particular associations may be freely organised as their members wish, and they may have their own internal life and discipline subject to the restriction that their members have a real choice of whether to continue their affiliation. The law protects the right of sanctuary in the sense that apostasy is not recognised, much less penalised, as a legal offence, any more than is having no religion at all. In these ways the state upholds moral and religious liberty.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Baptists suffered tremendously when the Church and State were merged. In the history of the Baptists, they fought very hard to be freed from the control of the political authorities in matters of their faith. With such a history, Baptists consider the separation of Church and State as very important in their beliefs.
The belief in the separation of Church and State is consistent with the New Testament model (unlike that of the Old Testament). The New Testament churches were separated from the State.
- Thomas C.M. Chin, The Baptist People
Saturday, 14 March 2009
the New Testament and the people of God
In an association of saints agreeing on a common ideal, if such a community could exist, disputes about justice would not occur. Each would work selflessly for one end as determined by their common religion, and reference to this end (assuming it to be clearly defined) would settle every question of right. But a human society is characterised by the circumstances of justice.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
an association of saints agreeing on a common ideal does exist, or at least it should. it is the body of Christ, the Church!
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
an association of saints agreeing on a common ideal does exist, or at least it should. it is the body of Christ, the Church!
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)
Friday, 13 March 2009
living day by day
The great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one's "own", or "real" life. The truth is of course that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one's real life - the life God is sending one day by day; what one calls one's "real life" is a phantom of one's own imagination. This at least is what I see at moments of insight; but it's hard to remember it all the time.
- C.S. Lewis, The Quotable Lewis
- C.S. Lewis, The Quotable Lewis
springtime for students
the start of spring"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."" - Genesis 1:20-22 (NIV)
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
a few clarifications
justification by faith (alone)
in one sense, justification is by faith alone. in another sense, justification is not by faith alone.
justification is by faith alone in the sense that the only way to appropriate Christ's righteousness, the only way 'the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus' (Ephesians 3:6, NIV) is by the instrument of faith.
justification is not by faith alone in the sense that there are three kinds of justification which are inextricably linked. we have been justified on the basis of Christ's work on the cross in the past, we are justified by the instrument of faith in the present and we will be justified in accordance with works in the future. as Calvin puts it, 'we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone'.
justification by works
in one sense, God judges us on what we do with what we have. in another sense, God does not judge us on what we do with what we have.
God judges us on what we do with what we have in the sense that God judges us on the evidence of what we do with what we have.
God does not judge us on what we do with what we have in the sense that God does not judge us on the basis of what we do with what we have (God judges us on the basis of Christ's work on the cross).
1. when we do good works, it is because God has prepared in advance for us to do them.
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" - Romans 9:22-24 (NIV)
"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:10 (NIV)
2. when we do good works, it is because God gives us the grace to do them.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me." - 1 Corinthians 15:10 (NIV)
"To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me." - Colossians 1:29 (NIV)
"Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen." - 1 Peter 4:10-11 (NIV)
3. when we do good works, it is because God works in us to do them.
"Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." - Philippians 1:6 (NIV)
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." - Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV)
"Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me." - Philippians 3:12 (NIV)
"I can do everything through him who gives me strength." - Philippians 4:13 (NIV)
4. above all, it is itself by grace that God rewards us on [the evidence of] what we do with what we have.
"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" - Luke 17:7-10 (NIV)
therefore, our good works do not diminish, but declare the glory of God in Christ's work on the cross.
in one sense, justification is by faith alone. in another sense, justification is not by faith alone.
justification is by faith alone in the sense that the only way to appropriate Christ's righteousness, the only way 'the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus' (Ephesians 3:6, NIV) is by the instrument of faith.
justification is not by faith alone in the sense that there are three kinds of justification which are inextricably linked. we have been justified on the basis of Christ's work on the cross in the past, we are justified by the instrument of faith in the present and we will be justified in accordance with works in the future. as Calvin puts it, 'we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone'.
justification by works
in one sense, God judges us on what we do with what we have. in another sense, God does not judge us on what we do with what we have.
God judges us on what we do with what we have in the sense that God judges us on the evidence of what we do with what we have.
God does not judge us on what we do with what we have in the sense that God does not judge us on the basis of what we do with what we have (God judges us on the basis of Christ's work on the cross).
1. when we do good works, it is because God has prepared in advance for us to do them.
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" - Romans 9:22-24 (NIV)
"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." - Ephesians 2:10 (NIV)
2. when we do good works, it is because God gives us the grace to do them.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me." - 1 Corinthians 15:10 (NIV)
"To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me." - Colossians 1:29 (NIV)
"Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen." - 1 Peter 4:10-11 (NIV)
3. when we do good works, it is because God works in us to do them.
"Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." - Philippians 1:6 (NIV)
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." - Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV)
"Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me." - Philippians 3:12 (NIV)
"I can do everything through him who gives me strength." - Philippians 4:13 (NIV)
4. above all, it is itself by grace that God rewards us on [the evidence of] what we do with what we have.
"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" - Luke 17:7-10 (NIV)
therefore, our good works do not diminish, but declare the glory of God in Christ's work on the cross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)