More on Spiritual Formation

from Dr. Gary Gilley

Almost everyone on the cutting edge of Christianity is talking about spiritual formation. From books to magazine articles to sermons to seminary courses, spiritual formation is a hot topic. What is spiritual formation? What does it teach? Is it something to embrace, ignore or fight? With this edition of Think on These Things I want to begin an examination of these questions and more. Lord willing, all of the TOTTs articles in 2012 will be devoted to detailing and evaluating some aspect of what some have called the “Spiritual Formation Movement.” In this lead article I intend to offer a definition of spiritual formation, trace its origins, mention a few of its practices, illustrate its recent popularity, and briefly identify its strengths and dangers.

In Search of a Definition

When the average person speaks of spiritual formation they assume that it is a modern or trendy synonym for discipleship. Throughout church history, in obedience to the Lord’s command found in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20), the church has dedicated itself to the task of making disciples, or followers of Jesus Christ. Perhaps growing weary of using the same word all the time, some more creative people have substituted other words such as mentoring, although that word is taken out of a secular context rather than a biblical one. Mentoring usually implies a one-on-one effort in which a more mature Christian is training a less mature believer as in, “I was mentored by Joe.” I think the word mentoring, simply because of its implications, common use, and background, is not the best word to describe what Scripture calls “making disciples.” When we examine the New Testament we find that disciple making is not the prerogative of individuals only, but also of the church. That is, disciples are made not by one-on-one relationships so much as by the ministry of the fuller body of Christ. While we can all point to special people in our lives who have been instrumental in our spiritual growth, and while we should all be actively involved on some level in discipling others, and while most dedicate their discipling efforts to a few people, potential disciples need the balance of the wider membership of the church to become the followers of Christ that the Lord intends (Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12). It is best, it seems to me, to stay with the biblical terminology which serves us well in understanding the task before us.

While the term “mentoring” is still used by some, it would appear that “spiritual formation” has supplanted both it and “discipleship” in the vocabulary of many. However, spiritual formation is not equivalent to discipleship, or mentoring for that matter. Some trace the roots of the Spiritual Formation Movement to 1974 when Father William Menninger, a Trappist monk, found an ancient book entitled The Cloud of Unknowing in the library at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts. This 14th century book offered a means by which contemplative practices, long used by Catholic monks, could be taught to lay people. As Menninger began teaching these contemplative practices, his abbot, Thomas Keating, along with Basil Pennington, another Trappist monk, began to spread the concepts Menninger was teaching.[1] But it was Richard Foster’s 1978 book, The Celebration of Discipline, that launched the popularity and present interest in spiritual formation. It was by this landmark book, described by Christianity Today as one of the ten best books of the 20th century, that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox disciplines, practiced by the Desert Fathers and Mothers[2] as well as monks and hermits, were introduced to evangelicalism. These disciplines were not completely unknown to evangelicals who were familiar with church history, but they were now being repackaged and offered as a means of spiritual growth and maturity. In fact, the implication was that without the use of these ancient contemplative methods true “spiritual formation” was not possible. Long accepted biblical disciplines, such as Bible study and prayer, were framed as quaint and simplistic. Worse, believers were told that these biblical disciplines were forged from a Western “worldview of the head.” If the believer wanted to move deeply into the things of God, such practices were not enough, for they never really reach the heart, leaving the unsuspecting Christian with little more than a superficial intellectual knowledge of the divine with no depth. Bruce Demarest, long time Professor of Christian Theology and Spiritual Formation at Denver Seminary states, “The heart discovers and experiences God; reason demonstrates and explains God.”[3] The same author quotes Brennan Manning as saying, “The engaged mind, illumined by truth, awakens awareness; the engaged heart, affected by love, awakens passion.”[4] The rather explicit implication throughout spiritual formation literature is that Bible study feeds the head, but if one wants to feed the heart they must turn to the spiritual disciplines.

As more and more authors, teachers, publishers and schools began to echo the same refrain evangelicals became intimidated. They did not want to be left out of the newest, and supposedly best, means of discipleship and so they began to read and listen to these new contemplative teachers. As they did so they found that almost every spiritual formation book and sermon opened by tapping into the innate dissatisfaction that all believers recognize. It goes something like this: “Are you not tired of the Christian life you have been living? Don’t you grow weary of reading the Bible, praying, and going to church? Wouldn’t you really like to enter into the very depth of your soul and encounter God in indescribable experiences that will radically change you forever? If so, then you must learn and live out the disciplines that have been used by the historic church almost since its inception. Read this book (or take this course or go to this renewal retreat or work on this degree, etc.) and we will teach you what the spiritual masters of the past knew but that we have long forgotten.”

On the basis of such promises the modern Spiritual Formation Movement was birthed and now flourishes. It sometimes goes by different handles such as Contemplative Spirituality or simply the Spiritual Disciplines, but they all refer to the same thing. Bruce Demarest offers this definition in his book Satisfy Your Soul, “Spiritual formation is an ancient ministry of the church, concerned with the ‘forming’ or ‘shaping’ of a believer’s character and actions into the likeness of Christ.”[5] Richard Foster would agree, “Christian spiritual formation is a God-ordained process that shapes our entire person so that we take on the character and being of Christ himself.”[6] This sounds much like the definition of discipleship as found in Scripture, but before we relax let’s return to Professor Demarest, who tells us that spiritual formation is not only concerned with orthodox doctrine but with “many practices that open [us] up to the presence and direction of God.”[7] This rather benign comment actually unlocks the door to the Spiritual Formation Movement and how it differs from biblical discipleship. What distinguishes spiritual formation from discipleship is not in its basically similar definition, but its source, its practices, and its philosophy.

Source

Perhaps one of the most important factors to understand when analyzing spiritual formation is its source or origin. Its teachers are fond of stating that their disciplines have old roots, going back to the earliest days of the church. Dan Kimble, in his book The Emerging Church, calls this the vintage church, while Robert Webber, author of Ancient-Future Faith, refers to it as the classic stage of church history (approximately the second through the sixth century). Such men have grown tired of superficial church life that has dominated much of Christianity since the insurgence of the “seeker-friendly” model. They desire something with more substance and more historical connection than what the modern church experience offers. They suggest we study the past and pattern our lives and churches after the rich and vibrant spiritual dynamics that we supposedly find there.

I believe these men almost get it right – almost. In fact, we do need to look to the past to see how we should live and function in the present. The problem is that the spiritual formation leaders do not go back far enough. In their march into the past they stop at the classical or vintage age of church formation instead of returning to the New Testament Scriptures. This is the fatal flaw in the whole movement. The early church (post-apostolic, not New Testament church) did many things right and many things wrong. Its pronouncements, views, rituals, organizations, and structures can be examined with profit, but they were not without error. I recently taught a course on the history of Christian doctrine using as a textbook John Hannah’s excellent book Our Legacy. In that course of study I found it most discouraging to discover how very quickly the early church departed from the teaching of the epistles. Both doctrinally and ecclesiastically the church, during the “classical” stage, moved beyond the inspired Word of God to establish its own views, doctrines, philosophies, rituals and formats.

On a doctrinal level all one has to do is read a few pages in the highly acclaimed (by those who promote spiritual formation) Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series. This 27-volume set (including the Apocrypha) is designed to enlighten this generation concerning the views of the early church fathers and theologians. The need for such a series is stated in the flyleaf of each volume, “Today the historical-critical method of interpretation has nearly exhausted its claim on the biblical text and on the church. In its wake there is a widespread yearning among Christian individuals and communities for the wholesome, the deep and the enduring.” In other words, it is time to abandon the historical-grammatical hermeneutical method and return to the fanciful and allegorical methods of the early church fathers. When you read the interpretations found in these volumes, you begin to wonder if some of the early church fathers are even reading the same Bible. Many (not all, of course) of the comments on the various texts are so whimsical and imaginative that any hope of a normal understanding of Scripture is lost. What this commentary series demonstrates very well is why and how the church went astray early in its history. When you twist Scripture to mean anything you want it to mean, where you end up can be quite bizarre.

A good example of what emerged from this type of hermeneutic is the monastic movement in which the so-called Desert Fathers and Mothers migrated to the Egyptian wilderness to live as hermits and supposedly contemplate God. In misguided zeal (and without direction from Scripture) these men and women would often starve themselves, expose their bodies to the elements, go as long as possible without sleep and live isolated from civilization. Under these peculiar and extreme conditions many of them claimed to have visions and encounters with the Lord that normal Christians did not have. As a result, some declared these individuals super-saints and their visions and dreams as revelatory words from the Lord. They were elevated to the status of Christian celebrities. These are the very ones that Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and Bruce Demarest call “spiritual masters” and from whom they draw their understanding of spiritual formation. As we will see time and time again, the teachings, methods, and concepts behind the Spiritual Formation Movement are drawn from these early contemplative hermits, as well as the medieval monks and nuns, principally from the Counter-Reformation period, not from Scripture.

It is absolutely essential to get this connection early in our study. Many, if not most, of the disciplines and instructions found within spiritual formation are not drawn from Scripture; they are drawn from the imaginations of men and women passed along through tradition. Demarest tells his readers that for help in spiritual formation we are to “turn to our Christian past – to men and women who understood how the soul finds satisfaction as we grow in God, and how His Spirit finds a more ready home in us.”[8] And just who are these people to whom we are supposed to turn?” Demarest suggests John of the Cross, Henri Nouwen, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, the desert fathers and mothers, and the Christians mystics.[9] Other highly touted mystics include Thomas Keating, Thomas Merton, Francis De Sales, Thomas Kelly, Madame Guyon, Theophan the Recluse, Ignatius of Loyola, Meister Eckhart, and Julian of Norwich. Virtually every author who has written a book on spiritual formation draws his understanding of the Christian life, and especially Christian experiences, from this stable of mystics. In other words, spiritual formation is not founded on the New Testament Scriptures but mostly on the experiences of Roman Catholic mystics, with a few Eastern Orthodox and Quakers thrown into the mix. This is important to understand from the beginning of our study, so I will repeat: the Spiritual Formation Movement is not based on Scripture but on the experiences, writings, and imaginations of those who teach a false gospel and misunderstand the Christian life as detailed in God’s Word.

With this in mind, we need to turn to the practices deemed absolutely essential by the mystics for spiritual formation. These are usually termed spiritual disciplines. What disciplines are we talking about?

Disciplines

John Ortberg, a former teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, describes spiritual disciplines as “any activity that can help me gain power to live life as Jesus taught and modeled it. How many spiritual disciplines are there? As many as we can think of.”[10] Is this the case? Can virtually any activity be turned into a spiritual discipline? Does God sanction all spiritual practices and endorse them as means of progressive sanctification? Biblical disciplines, which are indispensable for spiritual growth and discipleship, are, of course, positive things. But man-made disciplines are at best optional and are certainly not essential for spiritual growth, or else God’s Word would have commanded them and provided instruction for their use. Scripture clearly speaks of the discipline of Bible study (John 17:17; Psalm 1; Psalm 19; 2 Tim 3:15-4:6) as necessary for sanctification. Likewise prayer is mentioned as being a source of spiritual development (Heb 4:15-16). And the need for the body of Christ, both in the teaching of truth and mutual ministry (Eph 4:11-16; Heb 10:24-25), can be clearly found. But when we stray much beyond these we run into trouble. Nevertheless, the Spiritual Formation Movement offers long lists of disciplines that are essential for spiritual development.

Foster, in his Celebration of Discipline, provides a chapter each on the following disciplines: mediation, [contemplative] prayer, fasting, study, simplicity, solitude, submission, service, confession, worship, guidance, and celebration. InterVarsity Press has a line of books it calls Formatio which offers individual books designed to teach each of the above disciplines plus the sacramental life, silence, journaling, spiritual mentoring, pilgrimage, Sabbath keeping, sacred reading (lectio divina), and the need for spiritual directors. Thomas Nelson Publishing has recently published an 8-volume set they call “The Ancient Practices Series.” The first book, written by Brian McLaren (which ought to tell the discerning reader something), is Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices. The other books in the series are: In Constant Prayer, Sabbath, Fasting, Sacred Meal, Sacred Journey, The Liturgical Year and Tithing, all teaching spiritual disciplines derived from the mystics rather than from the New Testament. NavPress offers its “Spiritual Formation Line” to promote the spiritual disciplines. Many other major Christian publishers are following suit including Zondervan, which links with Youth Specialties to offer books aimed toward teaching young people and adults the contemplative life. Even from the pens of more conservative authors it is almost rare to read a recently published book that does not quote at least a few mystics. Some of the more prominent authors in the field include: Richard Foster (of course), Dallas Willard, Phyllis Tickle, Robert Benson, Dan Allender, Scot McKnight, Nora Gallagher, Adele Calhoun, David deSilva, Ruth Barton, Jan Johnson, Lynne Baab, Diana Butler Bass, Helen Cepero, Leighton Ford, Larry Crabb, Calvin Miller, Tricia McCary Rhodes, Mindy Caliguire, Albert Haase, Eugene Peterson, M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Gordon Smith, Brian McLaren, John Ortberg, Mark Yaconelli, Brennan Manning, Bruce Demarest, and Kenneth Boa. And this might be barely scratching the surface.

Future Think on These Things articles will directly address and critique many of these disciplines but for now it is important to note that Scripture does not teach that any of these (as defined in most spiritual formation literature) are a means of spiritual growth, sanctification or discipleship. Some of the spiritual disciplines encouraged are mentioned in the Word, yet very little specific detail is given on how they are to be observed or their purpose. Take fasting for example. Every reader of Scripture knows that fasting is mentioned on numerous occasions, but few comprehend its purpose and function. At no point in the Bible are we told that fasting enhances spiritual growth, or produces spiritual formation, although it has spiritual implications (we will look specifically at fasting in a future article).

If the spiritual disciplines, as are being taught by the leaders of the Spiritual Formation Movement, are not actually found in Scripture, how can Christian authors be so assertive in recommending them? They often do so because they are convinced that the human authors of Scripture were strong practitioners of the spiritual disciplines, but the disciplines were so much a part of first century life that the inspired authors saw no need to mention them in the New Testament. Dallas Willard, the “mentor” of Richard Foster, writes that Paul, for example, lived out the spiritual disciplines but did not write about them in the epistles for, “Obviously…for him and the readers of his own day, [there would be] no need to write a book on the disciplines for the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind…But quite a bit of time has passed – and many abuses have occurred in the name of spiritual disciplines [since that time].”[11]

What Willard is saying is that the only reason Paul and the apostles did not write about the disciplines is because they were already being practiced and modeled by the apostles to such an extent that no one at the time needed more information and insight into them. This is of course not only an argument from silence but a bit ludicrous as well. Did not the believers see Paul modeling prayer, preaching, body life and the study of Scripture? If so, why did he bother to write about the importance of these while completely ignoring many of the disciplines about which spiritual formation leaders are excited? The answer to this question is of extreme importance. Willard believes that, if Christians today are to live as the apostles and early disciples did, it is important that they somehow share in their experience but since, of course, we do not live with them, all we can do is read about their lives. This leaves us alienated from the lives of early disciples and therefore lacking in their spirituality. What can we do? “The only way to overcome this alienation from their sort of life,” Willard suggests, “is by entering into the actual practices of Jesus and Paul as something essential to our life in Christ.”[12] By this he means that we must engage in the spiritual disciplines that he assumes the early believers practiced (although we are never told so in the New Testament, nor mandated to do so).

This leads us to a fork in the road early in our studies. Do we, as believers in sola Scriptura, take our marching orders from the written Word, or do we look to the “white spaces” in Scripture to determine how we live? Do we actually believe that the Lord has given us in Scripture the teachings and practices He wants us to follow, or do we believe that we must supplement the authentic words of God with our imagination and traditions of men? This is increasingly becoming an issue within almost all branches of evangelicalism. Once it is accepted that we can enhance the Christian life by augmenting the inspired words of Scripture there is no limit to where we might end up. Take Bruce Demarest for example. As a lifetime conservative professor at a strong evangelical seminary, when he was first exposed to spiritual formation he resisted but in time he claimed he got over his biases and accepted the teachings behind it. He writes, “Admittedly I found that certain beliefs and traditions remained foreign to me, being based more on tradition than solidly on Scripture. All denominations have their blind spots. But I also found that, once I got past my old prejudices and misunderstanding, I accepted more than I rejected.”[13]

Philosophy

The Spiritual Formation Movement is concerned more about individual experience than biblical knowledge or truth. This does not mean that adherents are totally uninterested in the Bible, and some would know it well. But the emphasis is on what a person experiences through the Bible more so than what they learn. Contemplatives, such as Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, will strongly encourage Bible reading and prayer but they mean something different from what most Christians mean when they reference the same terms. As we will see in future articles, contemplative prayer is not the same as prayer defined biblically; “sacred reading” (also called lectio divina) of Scripture is not the same as Bible study; meditation (mystically encountering God) is not the same as knowing God and so forth. Many of the same terms are used, but as the classical liberals, and the more recent emergents, are fond of doing, they take our terms, including biblical ones, and give them new definitions and twists.

Many of the spiritual disciplines that are supposedly necessary for spiritual formation are either not found in the Bible, or have been redefined to mean something foreign to the scriptural meaning. We are being told that disciplines such as silence, journaling, or observing the liturgical calendar will transform our lives even though God’s Word does not advocate these things as means of spiritual growth. This puts the sincere Christian on the horns of a dilemma: Does Scripture actually “equip [the believer] for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17) as it promises, or does it not? If the Word is in need of being supplemented by the traditions, practices, and methods of people, which ones are we to choose – and, more importantly, how would we know which ones would be helpful? Do we determine such things by looking to the past and decreeing a particular set of hermits or mystics, who claimed visions and dreams and supernatural encounters with God, as our guide? And if so, which of the mystics get the nod as “spiritual masters” since many of their claims were mutually contradictory and highly fanciful? Or perhaps we should look to pragmatism as our guide. In other words, if it works for you then go for it. This seems to be the collective wisdom of spiritual formation teachers – if it works it must be from God, even if not sanctioned in Scripture.

There are at least two ways spiritual formation leaders attempt to establish a biblical foundation for the disciplines. The first has already been alluded to: ancient people were already practicing disciplines and so direct revelation from God was not necessary. Willard writes,

Thoughtful and religiously devout people of the classical and Hellenistic world, from the Ganges to the Tiber, knew that the mind and body of the human being had to be rigorously disciplined to achieve a decent individual and social existence. This is not something St. Paul had to prove or even explicitly state to his readers – but it also was not something he overlooked, leaving it to be thought up by crazed monks in the Dark Ages. It is, rather, a wisdom gleaned from millennia of collective human experience.[14]

In other words, the wisdom of collective human experience has recognized the need for religious disciplines, therefore a word from the Lord was unnecessary in biblical times. But the reality is that “collective human experience” and wisdom, especially in regard to religion, is self-deceiving (Prov 14:12). Man cannot comprehend God apart from divine revelation. The wisdom of collective human experience has resulted in every sort of human-created religion, all of which ultimately lead people astray. The wisdom of man never draws people to God or His ways (James 3:13-18). This was one of the key reasons that Jesus Christ came to earth; it was necessary for Him to “explain” God to us, otherwise we could never understand Him (John 1:18).

This takes us directly to the second way spiritual formation leaders attempt to lay a biblical foundation for what they teach. They make the claim that spiritual disciplines were practiced by Jesus and the apostles followed suit, therefore we are to do the same thing. Willard tells us, “The key to understanding Paul is to know that…he lived and practiced daily the things his Lord taught and practiced…Paul followed Jesus by living as he lived. And how did he do that? Through activities and ways of living that would train his whole personality to depend upon the risen Christ as Christ trained himself to depend upon the Father.”[15] What kind of practices does Willard have in mind? Here is a sample, “It is solitude and solitude alone that opens the possibility of a radical relationship to God that can withstand all external events up to and beyond death.”[16] None of us would deny that Jesus went away on occasion to pray or rest, as did Paul and the other apostles. Nor would any doubt the benefit of spending time alone with the Lord. But when we are told that “it is solitude and solitude alone that opens the possibility of a radical relationship to God,” I think it would be nice to have at least one proof text that actually says this. Where in Scripture does God make such a statement? One of the problems facing the evangelical church today is that too many men and women are setting themselves up as the final authority on the Christian life. We need to remember that no matter how famous, successful or popular Christian leaders may become, their authority rests solely on the revealed Word of God, not their own personality or intellect.

One of the points that spiritual formation adherents miss is that the New Testament does address their approach to spirituality. In Colossians 2:20-23 Paul clearly tells us that many of the disciplines that were being promoted then, as well as today, have no spiritual value at all. He asks the Colossians, “Why do you submit yourselves to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) – in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

The essence of the Spiritual Formation Movement is that through the use of their recommended disciplines our fleshly nature will be tamed and we will grow to become like Christ. Willard writes, “[Paul’s] crucifixion of the flesh, and ours, is accomplished through those activities such as solitude, fasting, frugality, service, and so forth, which constitute the curriculum in the school of self-denial and place us on the front line of spiritual combat.”[17] But the inspired apostle says the exact opposite. Bodily discipline does not control “fleshly indulgence.” Victory over sin and spiritual growth is the work (fruit) of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16-26) which is cultivated when we make use of the means that Scripture specifically prescribes, not the practices that have been invented or distorted by men.

Strengths and Dangers

On the positive side, we applaud anyone who sincerely wants to become more like Christ. The Spiritual Formation Movement has recognized a genuine lack in the spiritual lives of many who claim to follow the Lord. Many have gone to church, read the Bible, spent time in prayer, and have a good handle on doctrine, but they have no quality of spiritual life. Admittedly, all of us experience dry spells in our spiritual journey and at such times we are vulnerable to a charismatic speaker, a well-written book, or a moving retreat. None of this is negative, unless what is being taught lacks biblical authority. At times these dry seasons are instruments of God to prepare our hearts for lessons He will teach. At other times we need to recognize that we may very well have left the path of true discipleship and need to return to the way laid out for us in the Word. The real danger is that we will turn to the wrong sources for our answers. This is what spiritual formation is doing.

Richard Foster wrote in 2004,

When I first began writing in the field in the late 70s and early 80s the term "Spiritual Formation" was hardly known, except for highly specialized references in relation to the Catholic orders. Today it is a rare person who has not heard the term. Seminary courses in Spiritual Formation proliferate like baby rabbits. Huge numbers are seeking to become certified as Spiritual Directors to answer the cry of multiplied thousands for spiritual direction.[18]

This demonstrates well the popularity and spread of spiritual formation. Something that was only known in esoteric Roman Catholic circles less than 40 years ago is now demanding a front row seat in evangelical life. What has changed? The doctrines and teachings of Catholicism have not budged, but the willingness of evangelicals to compromise with the theology and practices of Rome have. As a matter of fact, even those who are soundly in conservative evangelical camps are willing to ignore huge doctrinal differences in order to experience a vitality of life that they, for whatever reason, have come to believe the Catholic contemplatives have to offer. Yet I believe that Michael Horton is correct when he warned,

We want to have direct, intuitive supernatural experiences. But God has determined that we derive all our knowledge of Him, not through direct encounters, but through the written Word, the Bible, and in the Person and work of His incarnate Son.[19]

What Scripture offers in the way of Christian experience and what spiritual formation offers are two different things, as I hope to demonstrate in the articles to come.

Conclusion

While some use “spiritual formation” as a synonym for discipleship, this is a mistake. However spiritual formation is officially defined, the means of spiritual formation within the movement is always spiritual disciplines drawn almost entirely from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics. Some evangelicals attempt to clean the disciplines up and redeem them for non-Catholic use, but the fact remains these disciplines are not taught in Scripture as channels for spiritual growth and discipleship.

Many are turning to spiritual formation at this time due to their own disappointments with their spiritual lives. When someone recommends the spiritual disciplines “which the church has always practiced throughout its history” (without mentioning that this is a reference to mystics within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions), some will naïvely jump at the opportunity. But as John MacArthur warns in another context,

Lifeless, dry orthodoxy is the inevitable result of isolating objective truth from vibrant experience. But the answer to dead orthodoxy is not to build a theology on experience. Genuine experience must grow out of sound doctrine. We are not to base what we believe on what we have experienced. The reverse is true. Our experiences will grow out of what we believe.[20]

Spiritual dry spells and dead spots are an inevitable part of the Christian life. Sometimes they are just normal mood cycles, at other times they are rooted in true spiritual concerns and sins. The disciple of Christ should pay attention to such times, for the Lord is at work. But the solution is not to turn to experiences and methods springing from the traditions of the past; it is found in returning to Scripture and through the power of the Holy Spirit living out the revelation the Lord has given us.

I must caution that the position I take will draw heavy criticism. Demarest attempts to ward off critiques of the Spiritual Formation Movement by saying, “The criticisms levied against the renewal of evangelical spirituality today reflects a lack of humility and charity. The excoriation of many Christian movements and leaders communicates the message that ‘I alone have the truth’ and ‘the majority of faithful Christians today are wrong.’”[21] But this constitutes no argument at all, rather it is an attempt to silence and intimidate those who challenge spiritual formation. The proper rebuttal to Demarest is to argue that anyone claiming that “I alone have the truth” would be truly arrogant and lacking in charity. However, to claim that the Lord alone has the truth and He has revealed that portion of truth He wants us to know in Scripture (Deut 29:29) is a different matter. If in fact the Lord has given us the authoritative Word to teach us that which we should know and how we should live, it would seem the wisest, kindest and most God-honoring thing we could do to believe, teach and live exactly as He has instructed us. In fact, it is the height of arrogance to do otherwise. Instead of chasing after the experiences and traditions of men we should rather delve deeply into the Word of God and live out the experiences He has designed for His followers.

What us the spiritual formation movement?

Question: "What is the spiritual formation movement?"

Answer: The spiritual formation movement is very popular today. It is, however, in many ways a move away from the truth of God's Word to a mystical form of Christianity, and it has infiltrated, to some degree, nearly all evangelical denominations. This idea of spiritual formation is based on the premise that if we do certain practices, we can be more like Jesus. Proponents of spiritual formation erroneously teach that anyone can practice these mystical rituals and find God within themselves.

Too often, adherents of the current spiritual formation movement believe the spiritual disciplines transform the seeker by his or her entering an altered realm of consciousness. The spiritual formation movement is characterized by such things as contemplative prayer, contemplative spirituality, and Christian mysticism.

True biblical spiritual formation, or spiritual transformation, begins with the understanding that we are sinners living apart from God. Our faculties have been corrupted by sin so that we cannot please God. True spiritual transformation occurs as we yield ourselves to God so that He may transform us by the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. At least half of every New Testament epistle is geared toward how to live a life well pleasing to God—by obedience and submission to the Holy Spirit in all things. Scripture does not only call us the redeemed, saved, saints, sheep, soldiers, and servants, but teaches us that only through the power of the Spirit we can live up to what the names mean.

The following passages address various aspects of spiritual formation, the work of God in the life of the believer.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). Here is the aim of transformation: that we may be like Christ.

"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18). This is part of a passage that teaches that we are changed into the image of Christ not by following rules and laws, but by following the leading of the Spirit by faith.

"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:3-7).

Here, Paul reminds us of our before-and-after life. We have responded to the "kindness and love of God" shown to us by the death of Christ for our sins, repented of our sins, and now respond to the Spirit’s continual prompting and empowerment to live differently as God's children. As a result, we have been transformed by the "rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (v. 5). This, then, is true spiritual formation—the reforming of our spirits by His Spirit into the image of Christ.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-formation.html#ixzz3WW9ndHO7

The Resurrectjon of Jesus

The Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus' vindication involves the exercise of God's power bringing him to life in a new, glorified state. After the discovery of the empty tomb (vv. 1-12), Luke narrates the conversation with the Emmaus-bound disciples, an account unique to him (vv. 13-35). Then follows the Gospel's closing scene, where Jesus visits the disciples (vv. 36-53). This final visit also is unique to Luke. Here Jesus appears to them (vv. 36-43) before giving them final instructions and departing (vv. 44-53).

A key feature of this section is the note of surprise among the disciples that Jesus is raised. Among the women, the disciples and the Emmaus travelers there is no hint that resurrection was anticipated. Such surprise is important, because it shows that even Jesus' own followers had to be convinced of his resurrection. They were not a gullible group that simply took resurrection as a given. Their surprise itself might seem strange, given Jesus' predictions of his resurrection as early as 9:22. But as late as 18:34, it is clear that the disciples never grasped the point of what Jesus was promising.

God's power underlies Jesus' resurrection. In addition, Scripture's claim (24:44-47), Jesus' promise (24:5-7), the angelic messengers' testimony (24:3-5, 23) and the testimony of disciples, both men and women, make up an impressive range of witnesses to this event (24:1-35). God's power stands behind the resurrection, because a passive verbal idea points to God's being responsible for it. This event is part of the reassurance Luke promised Theophilus in 1:1-4. The resurrection leads to the ascension and the events that grow from it.

As we come to the end of the Gospel, it is important to recall that Luke is only half finished with his story. The sequel comes in Acts. The resurrection-ascension is the link between the two volumes. That Luke regards the ascension as crucial is clear from Peter's speech in Acts 2. Now that Jesus is raised and seated at God's right hand, the mediating Ruler at the Father's side can pour out the blessing of God's Spirit (Acts 2:30-36). As the first ten chapters of Acts will make clear, the gospel can go to all because Jesus is Lord of all. The apostle Paul becomes the supreme example of a mission to all of humanity.The Resurrection Discovered (24:1-12)

First thing in the morning, the women come to the tomb with their spices, fully expecting to find Jesus' remains. All the accounts agree that it was early morning. Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:2 refer to the dawn or early morning, while John 20:1 notes that it was still dark when they started their journey.

The following point cannot be stressed too strongly: these women did not go believing in resurrection. They did not go to check and see if the tomb was empty. The fact that they took spices along to anoint the decaying body shows what they expected to find, and this despite six resurrection predictions in Luke. So the first people who had to be convinced of the resurrection were the disciples themselves. They may have belonged to the era of the ancients, but they did not think as a matter of course that resurrection would occur. In a real sense they were the first skeptics to become convinced that Jesus was raised!

The first hint that something had happened was the rolled-away stone. This stone, as was typical of ancient tombs, had covered the entrance. It was laid in a channel that had been carved out for it. While Mark 16:3 shows that the women had debated how they would get the heavy stone moved, Luke simply presents what confronts them on their arrival: They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

The women are at a loss, stymied, filled with perplexity. Their quandary is broken by the appearance of two men in clothes that gleamed, a description that suggests Luke means angels. Heavenly appearances are often bright (9:29; 10:18; Acts 9:3; 22:6). Any doubt that Luke means they are angels is removed in verse 23. The presence of the pair may invoke the "two witnesses" theme of the Old Testament (Deut 19:15). Luke's noting of two angels corresponds with John 20:12, while Matthew 28:2-4 and Mark 16:5 mention only one figure. The angelic appearance frightens the women, who bow to the ground in reverence. They know heaven is visiting the earth (Dillon 1978:26-27). The reason becomes clear in the angels' response.

It begins with a mild rebuke that is also an explanation: "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" Put simply, Jesus is alive, so do not expect to find him in a tomb. Then the angels ask them to recall the promise he made to them in Galilee. "Remember how he told you, . . . `The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again' " (9:22; 18:32-33). God is not surprised at Jesus' resurrection, and neither should they be surprised. Jesus' authority is summarized in the crucial Son of Man title. Here is a man who bears the authority of deity, through judgment given over to him by the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13-14). Luke 22:69 is coming to pass. In fact, the key term dei ("it is necessary") is used here to express the idea of divine design. God, the great cosmic director, has orchestrated what took place here (compare Acts 2:22-24). From the arrest through the death to the resurrection, Jesus walked in God's will. The women need not have wasted their money on the spices to preserve Jesus' body; God has taken care of it and has been in control all along.

The angels' words bring Jesus' words back to mind. The women cannot keep to themselves what has just happened--they return to tell the eleven and those with them. The entourage had included a large group of women, but Luke only names Mary Magdalene (8:2), Joanna (8:3) and Mary the mother of James (Mk 16:1).

Though the women are convinced, the rest are not. They come to belief slowly. Many of the disciples are originally skeptics about resurrection. At first they regard the women as hysterical, telling an idle tale. Leros (NIV nonsense), used here for "idle tale," was used in everyday Greek to refer to the delirious stories told by the very sick as they suffer in great pain or to tales told by those who fail to perceive reality (4 Maccabees 5:11; Josephus Jewish Wars 3.8.9 405). The other disciples think these women must be dreaming. Luke notes most of them do not believe their story, except for perhaps one or two present.

Yet Luke 24:12, if a part of the original document, indicates that Peter cannot sit still upon hearing the report. He has learned to trust what Jesus predicts. So he gets up and runs to the tomb, sees the linen clothes by themselves and departs. He wonders, or marvels, about what has come to pass. There is a little debate among interpreters whether Peter believes at this point. In fact, most doubt it, arguing that the term "marveling" (thaumazo; NIV wondering) is ambiguous (see 4:22; 11:38; Acts 13:41). But surely it is hard to call Peter doubting here, and the term can be positive (as in Lk 1:21, 63; 2:18, 33; 7:9; 8:25; 11:14; 20:26; 24:41; Stein 1992:607). Something stirs him to check out the story when others are incredulous. In addition, his recent experience with his denials has surely taught him to trust what Jesus says.

Peter walks away from the tomb simply contemplating what may be ahead. Something is happening, and its reality is slow to sink in with Jesus' followers. Just how much they struggle to understand the reality of Jesus' exaltation is indicated in the Emmaus incident that follows.

Though the church proclaims the resurrection confidently today, the original witnesses had to be convinced that it had occurred. Resurrection had been promised by Scripture and by Jesus, but only slowly, grudgingly and methodically did the disciples come to see that it had come to pass.The Emmaus Dialogue (24:13-35)

This resurrection account is one of the most dramatic stories in the Bible. Part of what makes it such an enjoyable story is that the reader knows more about what is taking place than the two disciples who unknowingly encounter Jesus. The British would call such a story "cheeky," because it pokes fun boldly at the doubting of resurrection. The reversal of emotion within the account shows how powerful a truth resurrection is. If God has power over Jesus' life and death, he also has power over all life and death. God is the Creator of life and is sovereign over death. If he points an endorsing finger at Jesus, how can humanity doubt him?

This meeting occurs as two disciples journey to Emmaus. They are sixty stadia, or about seven miles, from Jerusalem (the exact location of ancient Emmaus is not known today). The recent events have given them plenty to discuss, just as a major political event does among us today. In fact, the text portrays their discussion as rather intense, since syzeteo can refer to debating (Mk 8:11; Lk 22:23; Acts 6:9).

As they journey, a man joins them. Now Luke cleverly notes that it is Jesus, but he also mentions that the men cannot recognize him as Jesus. For once the joke is not on the reader but on the participants. Jesus is not being cruel here, but his gradual revelation of himself allows them to learn certain lessons about trusting God's promises. The disciples had been told about these events many times, but they cannot conceive how they could come to pass. The gradual revelation drives the point home vividly and calls on them to remember God's Word while trusting that what he says will come to pass. As we remember God's promise, we should rest in it (vv. 5-7). Luke's detailed account gives the reader an inside glimpse at how events were understood by disciples before they became aware that Jesus had risen from the dead. In all of these encounters, God shows himself to be in total control (note also v. 31).

So Jesus asks the two men about their conversation. Their countenance says it all: they stood still, their faces downcast. For these disciples, hope had been buried in the tomb provided by Joseph. In fact, one of them, Cleopas, is shocked that their new companion is unaware of recent events. His question's irony can hardly be overstated: "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?" (so correctly RSV). If anyone knows, it is the One they are speaking to! But to draw them out, he asks them about their discussion.

Reviewing the story of Jesus of Nazareth, they refer to him as a prophet, a popular conception of who Jesus was (4:16-30; 7:16; 9:7-9, 18; 13:31-35). In fact, this view of Jesus, when comparing him to a prophet like Moses, correctly reflects an aspect of his ministry (Acts 3:14-26; 10:38-39). This Jesus was powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. But the leadership, chief priests and rulers, handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him (23:13). The disciples' hope had been different: "We had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel." For them, Jesus' death had spelled a seeming end to that hope. The leaders had handed the promise over to Rome, and their persistence had extinguished its flame. Where these disciples place responsibility for Jesus' death is clear, and so is their disappointment.

But the story is not over. Three days have passed, and new events have caused a stir. Some of the female disciples journeyed to the tomb, only to find no body inside. They claimed to have seen a vision of angels. They claimed that he was alive. Still others went to the tomb and found it empty, but they did not see Jesus. This empirical note seems to be key for the two, since it seems they are not yet convinced that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Thomas gets all the contemporary press as a doubter of the resurrection, but Luke 24 makes it clear that he was merely one of a crowd, including these two followers. Like modern people in their skepticism, they will be persuaded only if they actually see Jesus. As readers we almost want to yell at the two, "Take a close look!"

Here is the major lesson of the Emmaus Road experience. Though resurrection is hard to believe, be assured that it took place. Its reality means that Jesus' claims are true. He was more than a teacher and more than a prophet. He was the promised, anointed one of God. A host of skeptics saw that this was so, and they believed. Do not be skeptical as these men were. Remember what God required of his Messiah: suffering, then vindication in exaltation.

Jesus starts to break their misconceptions with a rebuke: "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" For the second time in the chapter, Luke notes how these events were necessary (dei; compare v. 7). Jesus reviews the rest of the story from the book that reveals it. Events and Scripture together raise the issue of faith in God's promises. The disciples have been slow to believe. They have not read Isaiah 52--53 or Psalm 16 with understanding, not to mention Deuteronomy 18:15, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 118 or Daniel 7:13-14. No doubt when beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself, Jesus used many of the texts that show up in other places in Luke and Acts. By taking them back to the Scripture, Jesus is noting that what took place was part of God's plan and promise. Luke highlights the point by speaking about all the Prophets and interpreting all the Scripture. Scripture's promise centers on Jesus. This text is a primary witness to Jesus. We can rest assured that Jesus is who he claims to be.

The lesson has not ended, but it is getting late. So as they draw near to Emmaus, Jesus pretends (NIV acted as if; Greek prosepoiesato) he would journey on, but the men prevail upon him to stay with them. Since he has revealed the plan, now it is time to reveal the person.

It is in the intimacy of fellowship that Jesus is recognized. This setting is no mistake; it is a major Lukan theme. Many of the resurrection appearances he describes are associated with table fellowship (Lk 24:41-43; Acts 1:4; 10:41; also Jn 21:9-15). As Jesus sits at the table, takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it and gives it to them, their eyes were opened. In a situation that recalls the feeding of the five thousand and the Last Supper, the disciples realize that they have been talking with the Lord himself (Lk 9:22; 22:19). Though not a reenactment of the Last Supper, this meal does show that Jesus is present and is known when his disciples remain close to him. The lack of recognition of verse 16 is reversed. Their perplexity over recent events is removed. It is through sitting with Jesus and listening to him that we get to know him.

After his recognition by the disciples, Jesus disappears. That Jesus is alive is all the disciples need to understand. They can now appreciate that he is with them. All of a sudden the entire discussion on the road makes sense. Like a lost key found or a huge mystery solved, the direction of recent events becomes clear and the way to understand life anew is opened up. Because of this new awareness, the disciples recall their recent scriptural review in a new light: "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?" Their words point to how emotional the exposition had been for them, like a message being sown into the soul.

With a flame relit in their hearts, they return to the gathering of disciples in Jerusalem. The news is too good to keep to themselves. To know Jesus is to be thrilled at the prospect of sharing news of him with others.

Good news travels fast, and news of the verification of the resurrection was no exception. Jesus has, in effect, been everywhere. The two returning disciples are greeted with a report like their own: "The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon!" This is a new detail in chapter 24, since earlier all Luke had reported was the empty tomb Peter saw (v. 12). So the message of the Emmaus disciples is preempted. Jesus is among all of them. It is becoming clear to all in the community that the women were right after all. Jesus is alive, and their hope remains as firmly in place as ever. The Emmaus report follows. Luke stresses that Jesus revealed himself to the two disciples during the breaking of the bread. In the quietness of the table Jesus is especially revealed.

We can imagine the flood of emotion in the room as these stories of Jesus' appearances flowed in. It must have been like a newsroom full of reporters collecting facts on a breaking story. The room was probably abuzz.

What is more, though it is late and much has already happened, Jesus' appearances are not over quite yet. Despite his "physical" absence, he has actually been with all of them all along through resurrection--a very crucial message for the disciples to learn about how Jesus will be with them in the future. To say Jesus is risen is to say that he is with us.Jesus' Commission, Promise and Ascension (24:36-53)

Though Luke is concluding his Gospel, the real story is just beginning. Ahead is the disciples' empowerment through the bestowal of the Spirit so they can carry out their call on behalf of God. Beyond that is the mission to proclaim to the world what they have experienced and understood. Jesus had ministered to them to prepare them for this time. Now it is nearly time to go. Training camp is just about over; a long season of ministry lies ahead.

This account is unique to Luke and allows him to link the Gospel with Acts, given that the ascension ends and begins each volume. This final Gospel unit has a few similarities to the Emmaus account. Both include a resurrection appearance, a meal and scriptural exposition. Jesus is present with his disciples and is present in the Word. The union of the two reflects what life is designed to be.

Though I have separated these final verses from the Emmaus account, Luke has effectively woven the two stories together. As the room is buzzing with reports of Jesus' self-manifestations, he appears and says, "Peace be with you."

The disciples are still trying to take it all in, so peace is hardly their reaction. Rather, they are startled and frightened. They think for sure it is a spirit (pneuma; NIV a ghost). Even with the numerous reports of appearances, the idea that Jesus is alive and present is hard to accept. Empirical modernists are not the only skeptics: for the first disciples Jesus' resurrection was a difficult truth to swallow. Only a rapid-fire succession of demonstrations convinced the community it was so.

Jesus deals with their shock by challenging them. "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a [spirit] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Jesus invites them to determine once and for all that what has been reported is true. Offering himself to be handled, Jesus wants to lay to rest for all time any doubt about his resurrection's truthfulness. He showed them his hands and feet. This is no phantom. There is no hallucination. The disciples have not fabricated the stories that they heard. Psychosis has not created an account to fill an emotional hole. This is no immaterial Jesus, as the Gnostics later claimed had come, a Jesus who walked but left no footprints. No, this is the crucified Jesus with the marks of nails in his hands to prove he had gone the limit to overcome sin. It is Jesus raised from the dead, pure and simple.

It is all too much. The disciples still fight unbelief, but it is mixed with joy as the truth is slowly but surely dawning like morning light. Amazement is the dominant emotion. To prove the point, Jesus asks for food: "Do you have anything here to eat?" He accepts the broiled fish, probably obtained in the city, and eats it. The meal's consumption destroys the disciples' now short-lived "spirit" hypothesis. Jesus is really in their midst. He has come to have a final word on this momentous day.

Jesus reminds them that everything that had occurred had been discussed by him. His life has been a fulfillment of Scripture. "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Once again Luke highlights the divine design by using the term dei, "it is necessary." The Bible is an open book on Jesus' life and mission.

Then Jesus explains the Scriptures. Like a prophet-teacher, he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. A careful look at the syntax shows that three themes dominate his exposition, since verses 46-47 are governed by three Greek infinitives (pathein, anastenai, kerychthenai). It is crucial to appreciate that fulfillment centers on the person of the Christ. It is in the promised Son of David that these events are fulfilled. Old Testament hope is being realized here (though at the time Jesus spoke the scriptural texts were not known as the Old Testament, but simply as the revered writings of the Jewish faith, the Scriptures). Jesus says he is the completion and fulfillment of scriptural promise and hope: What God promises, he brings to pass. In fact, you are experiencing the center of his plan right now. To know Jesus is to be in the will of God.

First, the Christ had to suffer. Jesus had predicted this all along (9:22, 44; 17:25; 18:31-33; 22:37). His death was anticipated by Scripture. Luke has quoted Psalm 118 in describing Jesus' rejection, along with portions of Isaiah 53 in relation to his suffering. In addition he alluded to Psalm 22, Psalm 31:5 and Psalm 69 in the passion account.

Second, Messiah was to be raised. In this concept are bound up Psalm 16:10, Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 118:22-26. The disciples are experiencing this truth even as Jesus speaks.

Third is what remains to be accomplished. Five elements dominate this mission statement.

1. The disciples will be called to preach. They began to fulfill this call in Acts 2, and ever since the church has been proclaiming Jesus through the preached word. Preaching the gospel is an honorable ministry with the most ancient of roots.

2. Their message is a call to repentance. Since Jesus draws attention to the Old Testament roots of this concept, he is not merely discussing the "change of mind" that the Greek term metanoia suggests but the "turning" that is bound up in the Hebrew concept of repentance. Those who need a relationship with God are called to turn to God in faith. Coming to God involves the awareness that the road one was traveling was the wrong one. To come to know him is to change one's direction in life.

3. What is offered is forgiveness of sins. There need no longer be an obstacle between humankind and God because of sin. As we turn to God through Jesus, the offer of forgiveness manifests God's willingness to be gracious and to cancel the debt of sin that Jesus paid (Rom 1--8, especially 3:21-31).

4. The authority for it all resides in Jesus' name. Here is a major theme in Acts. Events are tied to his personal presence and his regal authority. Baptism, healing and forgiveness are especially noted in Acts (Acts 2:38, 3:6; 4:7; 8:16; 9:15-16; 10:43, 48; 15:14). As the Risen Lord and Christ, Jesus himself carries out these things.

5. The message is for all nations, and the preaching will start in Jerusalem. It took the church until Acts 10 to get this point. They initially thought Jesus had meant preaching in all nations to Jews of the diaspora. But God's vision to Peter showed that the message was for all humanity. Jesus is Lord of all, so the message can go to all (Acts 10:34-43).

The Old Testament elements behind the preaching seem to be the promises of the various covenants. The Abrahamic covenant included the promise that through Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3; Gal 3). The Davidic covenant had promised a ruler who would be a son to God and a source of blessing to Israel and the nations (2 Sam 7:5-16; Ps 2; 45; 89; 110; 118; 132; Is 2:2-4; especially Is 9--11; Ezek 34 on the Davidic son as shepherd). The new covenant promised a new heart, which Joel 2 tells us comes by the pouring out of God's Spirit. Luke calls this the what my Father has promised in verse 49, and John the Baptist had said the bestowal of the Spirit was the evidence of Messiah's arrival in Luke 3:15-17. The arrival is proclaimed in Acts 2, and Gentiles are seen as included in Acts 11:15-18.

With the mission set forth, Jesus calls all present his witnesses (compare Acts 1:8, 22; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 26:16). They have seen with their eyes and held in their hands the truth that Jesus is alive. So he calls them to this preaching task. They have experienced truth into which angels, kings and prophets had longed to look (Lk 10:23-24; 1 Pet 1:10-12).

The task's scope and difficulty mean that they are not simply to launch out, but they must wait until God has given them authority from above, what Jesus calls being clothed with power from on high. First Chronicles 12:18 shows the Old Testament roots of this image. The Lukan reference to God's promise describes the coming of the Spirit's enabling power. In this brief statement is the Synoptic equivalent of the great Paraclete address of Jesus in John 14--16. The church's task will be difficult; special ability will be needed to accomplish it. It is not to be carried out in mere human strength. Just as Jesus' presence at the table has shown, God's intimate, indwelling presence is necessary to make it work.

It is also significant that it is Jesus who sends this promise (I am going to send). He is now the mediator of blessing from God. Acts 2:33 makes a similar point. To experience the Father's goodness, one must pass through the Son.

Luke describes Jesus' departure very briefly. The conciseness of this account is probably because Luke also spends time narrating a departure in Acts 1. It is much discussed whether this event is the same as the one in Acts 1 or is a distinct event. If it equals Acts 1, then Luke has simply summarized quickly here what took place forty days later to establish a literary tie to Acts. The possibility of literary compression makes a choice very difficult to establish (for one event, see Parsons 1987:193-94; for the options, Osborne 1984:137-38 and especially 266-70; Osborne opts for two perspectives on the one event: Lk 24 as theological and Acts 1 as historical).

The Gospel's final scene closes with a note of blessing and worship. Such an ending is perfectly appropriate, for Jesus came to offer hope. From the opening words of the infancy material to the end of the Gospel, Luke has sounded the trumpet that Jesus brings God's promise and blessing in fulfillment of God's design. What he did was necessary. What he did brought a new era, as God moved from a time of promise to the beginning of realized promise. Jesus is to bring more, as Acts 3 makes especially clear, but the corner has been turned in God's plan. Blessing is available in a way only dreamed of before Jesus.

Many people wish that they had lived in the Old Testament times of great miracles. To see Moses or Elijah at work would have been inspiring. But Luke's perspective is that these Old Testament saints would have seen our era as the blessed one. What they had worked toward met its realization in Jesus. So the Gospel's closing note of blessing is very appropriate. To experience Jesus' presence is to be blessed. The disciples head to Jerusalem with hearts filled with joy, gratitude and worship--attitudes that we too should experience as we learn to appreciate God's grace.

The disciples' response is to await the blessing. They journey to Jerusalem, obeying the Lord's command to wait for the Spirit there. But more than their obedience is the attitude that accompanies it. They are filled with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God. There was not just obedience, there was joy, praise and thanksgiving, along with a commitment to be constantly present with the Lord. The resurrection has strengthened these disciples' relationship with God. Their sense of privilege at being involved in God's plan did not waver even years later, when persecution and rejection of their message became strong. They loved their enemy and took the message of the living and ascended Christ to the world. They challenged the world to receive blessing from Jesus and, without shrillness, warned of the judgment to come (Acts 2:36-41; 10:42-43; 13:23-41; 1 Pet 3:15-16). But their mission was not a task or a business to them. It was a joy, an act of worship to experience Jesus' presence and do his will.

The Gospel of Luke has an open-ended conclusion. In a real sense it ends at a beginning. No longer is the story about what Jesus did during his earthly ministry. Now it is the saga of what he continued to do through God's people, whom he equipped to perform a task and carry a message. That message is not one of words alone but of life, love and light. The message is both proclaimed and lived out before a world covered with darkness.

As the Gospel closes, it is important not to forget the words that came early in this Gospel when both John the Baptist and Jesus were introduced:

And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,

to give his people the knowledge of salvation

through the forgiveness of their sins,

because of the tender mercy of our God,

by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven

to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the path of peace.

Jesus departed into the heaven from which he came. He did so not to leave us but to guide us, not to disappoint us but to intercede for us. He departed with a blessing. He departed to equip us. For those who know him, his blessing is always with us. So we worship him with joy and serve him with gladness, continually blessing God for the gift of his Son.

Great is God's faithfulness. That is the understanding, desire and assurance Luke longed to leave in the heart of his reader Theophilus. That is the precious legacy Luke left to the church.

"What is sola scriptura?"

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

The Sufferings of Christ

By E. G. White

In order to fully realize the value of salvation, it is necessary to understand what it cost. In consequence of limited ideas of the sufferings of Christ, many place a low estimate upon the great work of the atonement. The glorious plan of man's salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God and Father. In this divine plan is seen the most marvelous manifestation of the love of God to the fallen race. Such love as is manifested in the gift of God's beloved Son amazed the holy angels. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This Saviour was the brightness of His Father's glory and the express image of His person. He possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God. "It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell." "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Christ consented to die in the sinner's stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the law of God. His death did not make the law of none effect; it did not slay the law, lessen its holy claims, nor detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of His Father's law in punishing the transgressor, in that He consented to suffer the penalty of the law Himself in order to save fallen man from its curse. The death of God's beloved Son on the cross shows the immutability of the law of God. His death magnifies the law and makes it honorable, and gives evidence to man of its changeless character. From His own divine lips are heard the words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The death of Christ justified the claims of the law.

In Christ were united the human and the divine. His mission was to reconcile God and man, to unite the finite with the infinite. This was the only way in which fallen men could be exalted through the merits of the blood of Christ to be partakers of the divine nature. Taking human nature fitted Christ to understand man's trials and sorrows, and all the temptations wherewith he is beset. Angels who were unacquainted with sin could not sympathize with man in his peculiar trials. Christ condescended to take man's nature and was tempted in all points like as we, that He might know how to succor all who should be tempted.

As the human was upon Him, He felt His need of strength from His Father. He had select places of prayer. He loved to hold communion with His Father in the solitude of the mountain. In this exercise His holy, human soul was strengthened for the duties and trials of the day. Our Saviour identifies Himself with our needs and weaknesses, in that He became a suppliant, a nightly petitioner, seeking from His Father fresh supplies of strength, to come forth invigorated and refreshed, braced for duty and trial. He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege. He required all the stronger divine support and comfort which His Father was ready to impart to Him, to Him who had, for the benefit of man, left the joys of heaven and chosen His home in a cold and thankless world. Christ found comfort and joy in communion with His Father. Here He could unburden His heart of the sorrows that were crushing Him. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

Through the day He labored earnestly to do good to others, to save men from destruction. He healed the sick, comforted the mourning, and brought cheerfulness and hope to the despairing. He brought the dead to life. After His work was finished for the day, He went forth, evening after evening, away from the confusion of the city, and His form was bowed in some retired grove in supplication to His Father. At times the bright beams of the moon shone upon His bowed form. And then again the clouds and darkness shut away all light. The dew and frost of night rested upon His head and beard while in the attitude of a suppliant. He frequently continued His petitions through the entire night. He is our example. If we could remember this, and imitate Him, we would be much stronger in God.

If the Saviour of men, with His divine strength, felt the need of prayer, how much more should feeble, sinful mortals feel the necessity of prayer--fervent, constant prayer! When Christ was the most fiercely beset by temptation, He ate nothing. He committed Himself to God and, through earnest prayer and perfect submission to the will of His Father, came off conqueror. Those who profess the truth for these last days, above every other class of professed Christians, should imitate the great Exemplar in prayer.

"It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord." Our tables are frequently spread with luxuries neither healthful nor necessary, because we love these things more than we love self-denial, freedom from disease, and soundness of mind. Jesus sought earnestly for strength from His Father. This the divine Son of God considered of more value, even for Himself, than to sit at the most luxurious table. He has given us evidence that prayer is essential in order to receive strength to contend with the powers of darkness, and to do the work allotted us. Our own strength is weakness, but that which God gives is mighty and will make everyone who obtains it more than conqueror.

As the Son of God bowed in the attitude of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, the agony of His spirit forced from His pores sweat like great drops of blood. It was here that the horror of great darkness surrounded Him. The sins of the world were upon Him. He was suffering in man's stead as a transgressor of His Father's law. Here was the scene of temptation. The divine light of God was receding from His vision, and He was passing into the hands of the powers of darkness. In His soul anguish He lay prostrate on the cold earth. He was realizing His Father's frown. He had taken the cup of suffering from the lips of guilty man, and proposed to drink it Himself, and in its place give to man the cup of blessing. The wrath that would have fallen upon man was now falling upon Christ. It was here that the mysterious cup trembled in His hand.

Jesus had often resorted to Gethsemane with His disciples for meditation and prayer. They were all well acquainted with this sacred retreat. Even Judas knew where to lead the murderous throng, that he might betray Jesus into their hands. Never before had the Saviour visited the spot with a heart so full of sorrow. It was not bodily suffering from which the Son of God shrank, and which wrung from His lips, in the presence of His disciples, these mournful words: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." "Tarry ye here," said He, "and watch with Me."

Leaving His disciples within hearing of His voice, He went a little distance from them and fell on His face and prayed. His soul was agonized, and He pleaded: "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt." The sins of a lost world were upon Him and overwhelming Him. It was a sense of His Father's frown, in consequence of sin, which rent His heart with such piercing agony and forced from His brow great drops of blood, which, rolling down His pale cheeks, fell to the ground, moistening the earth.

Rising from His prostrate position, He came to His disciples and found them sleeping. He said unto Peter: "What, could ye not watch with Me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." At the most important time--the time when Jesus had made a special request for them to watch with Him--the disciples were found sleeping. He knew that severe conflicts and terrible temptations were before them. He had taken them with Him that they might be a strength to Him, and that the events they should witness that night, and the lessons of instruction they should receive, might be indelibly printed upon their memories. This was necessary that their faith might not fail, but be strengthened for the test just before them.

But instead of watching with Christ, they were burdened with sorrow, and fell asleep. Even the ardent Peter, who, only a few hours before, had declared that he would suffer and, if need be, die for his Lord, was asleep. At the most critical moment, when the Son of God was in need of their sympathy and heartfelt prayers, they were found asleep. They lost much by thus sleeping. Our Saviour designed to fortify them for the severe test of their faith to which they would soon be subjected. If they had spent that mournful period in watching with the dear Saviour, and in prayer to God, Peter would not have been left to his own feeble strength to deny his Lord in the time of trial.

The Son of God went away the second time, and prayed, saying: "O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me, except I drink it, Thy will be done." And again He came to His disciples and found them sleeping. Their eyes were heavy. By these sleeping disciples is represented a sleeping church, when the day of God's visitation is nigh. It is a time of clouds and thick darkness, when to be found asleep is most perilous.

Jesus has left us this warning: "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: lest coming suddenly He find you sleeping." The church of God is required to fulfill her night watch, however perilous, whether long or short. Sorrow is no excuse for her to be less watchful. Tribulation should not lead to carelessness, but to double vigilance. Christ has directed the church by His own example to the Source of their strength in times of need, distress, and peril. The attitude of watching is to designate the church as God's people indeed. By this sign the waiting ones are distinguished from the world and show that they are pilgrims and strangers upon the earth.

Again the Saviour turned sadly from His sleeping disciples, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then He came to them and said: "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." How cruel for the disciples to permit sleep to close their eyes, and slumber to chain their senses, while their divine Lord was enduring such inexpressible mental anguish! If they had remained watching they would not have lost their faith as they beheld the Son of God dying upon the cross. This important night watch should have been signalized by noble mental struggles and prayers, which would have brought them strength to witness the unspeakable agony of the Son of God. It would have prepared them, as they should behold His sufferings upon the cross, to understand something of the nature of the overpowering anguish which He endured in the Garden of Gethsemane. And they would have been better able to recall the words He had spoken to them in reference to His sufferings, death, and resurrection; and, amid the gloom of that terrible, trying hour, some rays of hope would have lighted up the darkness and sustained their faith.

Christ had told them before that these things would take place, but they did not understand Him. The scene of His sufferings was to be a fiery ordeal to His disciples, hence the necessity of watchfulness and prayer. Their faith needed to be sustained by an unseen strength as they should experience the triumph of the powers of darkness. We can have but faint conceptions of the inexpressible anguish of God's dear Son in Gethsemane, as He realized His separation from His Father in consequence of bearing man's sin. He became sin for the fallen race. The sense of the withdrawal of His Father's love pressed from His anguished soul these mournful words: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." Then with entire submission to His Father's will, He adds: "Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt."

The divine Son of God was fainting, dying. The Father sent a messenger from His presence to strengthen the divine Sufferer and brace Him to tread His bloodstained path. Could mortals have viewed the amazement and the sorrow of the angelic host as they watched in silent grief the Father separating His beams of light, love, and glory from the beloved Son of His bosom, they would better understand how offensive sin is in His sight. The sword of justice was now to awake against His dear Son. He was betrayed by a kiss into the hands of His enemies, and hurried to the judgment hall of an earthly court, there to be derided and condemned to death by sinful mortals. There the glorious Son of God was "wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." He bore insult, mockery, and shameful abuse, until "His visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men."

Who can comprehend the love here displayed! The angelic host beheld with wonder and with grief Him who had been the Majesty of heaven, and who had worn the crown of glory, now wearing the crown of thorns, a bleeding victim to the rage of an infuriated mob, fired to insane madness by the wrath of Satan. Behold the patient Sufferer! Upon His head is the thorny crown. His lifeblood flows from every lacerated vein. All this in consequence of sin! Nothing could have induced Christ to leave His honor and majesty in heaven, and come to a sinful world, to be neglected, despised, and rejected by those He came to save, and finally to suffer upon the cross, but eternal, redeeming love, which will ever remain a mystery.

Wonder, O heavens, and be astonished, O earth! Behold the oppressor and the oppressed! A vast multitude enclose the Saviour of the world. Mockings and jeerings are mingled with the coarse oaths of blasphemy. His lowly birth and humble life are commented upon by unfeeling wretches. His claim to be the Son of God is ridiculed by the chief priests and elders, and vulgar jests and insulting derision are passed from lip to lip. Satan was having full control of the minds of his servants. In order to do this effectually, he commences with the chief priests and elders, and imbues them with religious frenzy. They are actuated by the same satanic spirit which moves the most vile and hardened wretches. There is a corrupt harmony in the feelings of all, from the hypocritical priests and elders down to the most debased. Christ, the precious Son of God, was led forth, and the cross was laid upon His shoulders. At every step was left blood which flowed from His wounds. Thronged by an immense crowd of bitter enemies and unfeeling spectators, He is led away to the crucifixion. "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth."

His sorrowing disciples follow Him at a distance, behind the murderous throng. He is nailed to the cross, and hangs suspended between the heavens and the earth. Their hearts are bursting with anguish as their beloved Teacher is suffering as a criminal. Close to the cross are the blind, bigoted, faithless priests and elders, taunting, mocking, and jeering: "Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save Thyself. If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, I am the Son of God."

Not one word did Jesus answer to all this. While the nails were being driven through His hands, and the sweat drops of agony were forced from His pores, from the pale, quivering lips of the innocent Sufferer a prayer of pardoning love was breathed for His murderers: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." All heaven was gazing with profound interest upon the scene. The glorious Redeemer of a lost world was suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law. He was about to ransom His people with His own blood. He was paying the just claims of God's holy law. This was the means through which an end was to be finally made of sin and Satan, and his host to be vanquished.

Oh, was there ever suffering and sorrow like that endured by the dying Saviour! It was the sense of His Father's displeasure which made His cup so bitter. It was not bodily suffering which so quickly ended the life of Christ upon the cross. It was the crushing weight of the sins of the world, and a sense of His Father's wrath. The Father's glory and sustaining presence had left Him, and despair pressed its crushing weight of darkness upon Him and forced from His pale and quivering lips the anguished cry: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Jesus had united with the Father in making the world. Amid the agonizing sufferings of the Son of God, blind and deluded men alone remain unfeeling. The chief priests and elders revile God's dear Son while in His expiring agonies. Yet inanimate nature groans in sympathy with her bleeding, dying Author. The earth trembles. The sun refuses to behold the scene. The heavens gather blackness. Angels have witnessed the scene of suffering until they can look no longer, and hide their faces from the horrid sight. Christ is dying! He is in despair! His Father's approving smile is removed, and angels are not permitted to lighten the gloom of the terrible hour. They can only behold in amazement their loved Commander, the Majesty of heaven, suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law.

Even doubts assailed the dying Son of God. He could not see through the portals of the tomb. Bright hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the tomb a conqueror and His Father's acceptance of His sacrifice. The sin of the world, with all its terribleness, was felt to the utmost by the Son of God. The displeasure of the Father for sin, and its penalty, which is death, were all that He could realize through this amazing darkness. He was tempted to fear that sin was so offensive in the sight of His Father that He could not be reconciled to His Son. The fierce temptation that His own Father had forever left Him caused that piercing cry from the cross: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Christ felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair, like the pall of death, will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. Salvation has been purchased for them by the suffering and death of the Son of God. It might be theirs, if they would accept of it willingly, gladly; but none are compelled to yield obedience to the law of God. If they refuse the heavenly benefit and choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death. They will be forever separated from the presence of Jesus, whose sacrifice they had despised. They will have lost a life of happiness and sacrificed eternal glory for the pleasures of sin for a season.

Faith and hope trembled in the expiring agonies of Christ because God had removed the assurance He had heretofore given His beloved Son of His approbation and acceptance. The Redeemer of the world then relied upon the evidences which had hitherto strengthened Him, that His Father accepted His labors and was pleased with His work. In His dying agony, as He yields up His precious life, He has by faith alone to trust in Him whom it has ever been His joy to obey. He is not cheered with clear, bright rays of hope on the right hand nor on the left. All is enshrouded in oppressive gloom. Amid the awful darkness which is felt by sympathizing nature, the Redeemer drains the mysterious cup even to its dregs. Denied even bright hope and confidence in the triumph which will be His in the future, He cries with a loud voice: "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." He is acquainted with the character of His Father, with His justice, His mercy, and His great love, and in submission He drops into His hands. Amid the convulsions of nature are heard by the amazed spectators the dying words of the Man of Calvary.

Nature sympathized with the suffering of its Author. The heaving earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that it was the Son of God who died. There was a mighty earthquake. The veil of the temple was rent in twain. Terror seized the executioners and spectators as they beheld the sun veiled in darkness, and felt the earth shake beneath them, and saw and heard the rending of the rocks. The mocking and jeering of the chief priests and elders were hushed as Christ commended His spirit into the hands of His Father. The astonished throng began to withdraw and grope their way in the darkness to the city. They smote upon their breasts as they went and in terror, speaking scarcely above a whisper, said among themselves: "It is an innocent person that has been murdered. What if, indeed, He is, as He asserted, the Son of God?"

Jesus did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and exclaimed with His departing breath: "It is finished." Satan was then defeated. He knew that his kingdom was lost. Angels rejoiced as the words were uttered: "It is finished." The great plan of redemption, which was dependent on the death of Christ, had been thus far carried out. And there was joy in heaven that the sons of Adam could, through a life of obedience, be finally exalted to the throne of God. Oh, what love! What amazing love! that brought the Son of God to earth to be made sin for us, that we might be reconciled to God, and elevated to a life with Him in His mansions in glory. Oh, what is man, that such a price should be paid for his redemption!

When men and women can more fully comprehend the magnitude of the great sacrifice which was made by the Majesty of heaven in dying in man's stead, then will the plan of salvation be magnified, and reflections of Calvary will awaken tender, sacred, and lively emotions in the Christian's heart. Praises to God and the Lamb will be in their hearts and upon their lips. Pride and self-esteem cannot flourish in the hearts that keep fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary. This world will appear of but little value to those who appreciate the great price of man's redemption, the precious blood of God's dear Son. All the riches of the world are not of sufficient value to redeem one perishing soul. Who can measure the love Christ felt for a lost world as He hung upon the cross, suffering for the sins of guilty men? This love was immeasurable, infinite.

Christ has shown that His love was stronger than death. He was accomplishing man's salvation; and although He had the most fearful conflict with the powers of darkness, yet, amid it all, His love grew stronger and stronger. He endured the hiding of His Father's countenance, until He was led to exclaim in the bitterness of His soul: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" His arm brought salvation. The price was paid to purchase the redemption of man, when, in the last soul struggle, the blessed words were uttered which seemed to resound through creation: "It is finished."

Many who profess to be Christians become excited over worldly enterprises, and their interest is awakened for new and exciting amusements, while they are coldhearted, and appear as if frozen, in the cause of God. Here is a theme, poor formalist, which is of sufficient importance to excite you. Eternal interests are here involved. Upon this theme it is sin to be calm and unimpassioned. The scenes of Calvary call for the deepest emotion. Upon this subject you will be excusable if you manifest enthusiasm. That Christ, so excellent, so innocent, should suffer such a painful death, bearing the weight of the sins of the world, our thoughts and imaginations can never fully comprehend. The length, the breadth, the height, the depth, of such amazing love we cannot fathom. The contemplation of the matchless depths of a Saviour's love should fill the mind, touch and melt the soul, refine and elevate the affections, and completely transform the whole character. The language of the apostle is: "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." We also may look toward Calvary and exclaim: "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Considering at what an immense cost our salvation has been purchased, what will be the fate of those who neglect so great salvation? What will be the punishment of those who profess to be followers of Christ, yet fail to bow in humble obedience to the claims of their Redeemer, and who do not take the cross as humble disciples of Christ and follow Him from the manger to Calvary? "He that gathereth not with Me," says Christ, "scattereth abroad."

Some have limited views of the atonement. They think that Christ suffered only a small portion of the penalty of the law of God; they suppose that, while the wrath of God was felt by His dear Son, he had, through all His painful sufferings, the evidence of His Father's love and acceptance; that the portals of the tomb before Him were illuminated with bright hope, and that He had the abiding evidence of His future glory. Here is a great mistake. Christ's keenest anguish was a sense of His Father's displeasure. His mental agony because of this was of such intensity that man can have but faint conception of it.

With many the story of the condescension, humiliation, and sacrifice of our divine Lord awakens no deeper interest, and stirs the soul and affects the life no more, than does the history of the death of the martyrs of Jesus. Many have suffered death by slow tortures; others have suffered death by crucifixion. In what does the death of God's dear Son differ from these? It is true He died upon the cross a most cruel death; yet others, for His dear sake, have suffered equally, so far as bodily torture is concerned. Why, then, was the suffering of Christ more dreadful than that of other persons who have yielded their lives for His sake? If the sufferings of Christ consisted in physical pain alone, then His death was no more painful than that of some of the martyrs.

But bodily pain was but a small part of the agony of God's dear Son. The sins of the world were upon Him, also the sense of His Father's wrath as He suffered the penalty of the law transgressed. It was these that crushed His divine soul. It was the hiding of His Father's face--a sense that His own dear Father had forsaken Him--which brought despair. The separation that sin makes between God and man was fully realized and keenly felt by the innocent, suffering Man of Calvary. He was oppressed by the powers of darkness. He had not one ray of light to brighten the future. And He was struggling with the power of Satan, who was declaring that he had Christ in his power, that he was superior in strength to the Son of God, that the Father had disowned His Son, and that He was no longer in the favor of God any more than himself. If He was indeed still in favor with God, why need He die? God could save Him from death.

Christ yielded not in the least degree to the torturing foe, even in His bitterest anguish. Legions of evil angels were all about the Son of God, yet the holy angels were bidden not to break their ranks and engage in conflict with the taunting, reviling foe. Heavenly angels were not permitted to minister unto the anguished spirit of the Son of God. It was in this terrible hour of darkness, the face of His Father hidden, legions of evil angels enshrouding Him, the sins of the world upon Him, that the words were wrenched from His lips: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

The death of the martyrs can bear no comparison with the agony endured by the Son of god. We should take broader and deeper views of the life, sufferings, and death of God's dear Son. When the atonement is viewed correctly, the salvation of souls will be felt to be of infinite value. In comparison with the enterprise of everlasting life, every other sinks into insignificance. But how have the counsels of this loving Saviour been despised! The heart has been devoted to the world, and selfish interests have closed the door against the Son of God. Hollow hypocrisy and pride, selfishness and gain, envy, malice, and passion, have so filled the hearts of many that Christ can have no room.

He was eternally rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He was clothed with light and glory, and was surrounded with hosts of heavenly angels waiting to execute His commands. Yet He put on our nature and came to sojourn among sinful mortals. Here is love that no language can express. It passes knowledge. Great is the mystery of godliness. Our souls should be enlivened, elevated, and enraptured with the theme of the love of the Father and the Son to man. The followers of Christ should here learn to reflect in some degree that mysterious love preparatory to joining all the redeemed in ascribing "blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, . . . unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."

Think on These Things

Think on These Things Articles
A Matter of Purity
Reblog

As the author of Hebrews begins to wrap up his intensely doctrinal epistle, he makes it clear that doctrine has as its goal the changing of lives. It matters little how much theology you know; it matters little if you write doctrinal treatises on the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus Christ; it matters little if you can understand and explain everything in this epistle; if this knowledge does not change your life, it is of little value.

What does it matter if I know all of these things and more:

If I can’t be kind to my wife and kids at home; if I am in constant battle with people at work; if I am hard to get along with, mean spirited, divisive, easily offended, a gossip or lack concern (Hebrews 13:1-3)?
If I can’t live in moral purity or I live for the same goals of money and stuff that the unbeliever does (Hebrews 13:4-9)?
If my spiritual life is deteriorating; if I have no passion for Him; if I do not worship Him with words and life; if I do not obey Him (Hebrews 13:10-17)?
Our theology must translate down into life or it is of little value. The first area of specific application dealt with by the author of Hebrews is the relational (13:1-3). The second area deals with purity. The two purity issues that our author wants to address are without doubt the two areas in our lives where the hottest battles are often fought: morality and money.

MORALITY

While money is an important topic, it is morality that we want to examine in this paper. Hebrews 13:4 reads, Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Two of the most astounding impacts that early Christianity had on the secular culture of its day were in the realms of marriage and morality. We who have grown up in a Christian-laced society cannot appreciate the radical changes that Christianity introduced. Today we stand on the other side of Christian history, what many call a post-Christian era, in which the moral foundations of our Western world, having been founded on Christian principles, if not Christianity, erode before our very eyes. We fight this and lament it. We try to vote in the right politicians. We try to pass the right moral laws. We complain about the TV and modern music. But all of these efforts are ultimately failing because the foundation of our society has collapsed. Biblical Christianity is being abandoned, and with it the morality it brought to the world. The moral residue that remains is due largely to the hangover of Christian influence, but as that evaporates so will our morals. Only a full-scale return to the faith can turn back the clock.

A Christian speaker was asked which of the accepted morals of our day would change in the next 20 years. His answer was to look back 20 years to see which morals and values our society then held dear, which it has since abandoned. Think of the changes in the area of homosexuality, promiscuity on TV, Christian influence in the schools. Now, what is it that we consider immoral today that will likely change in 20 years? What is still taboo? Incest; pedophilia; euthanasia; maybe a few others. All of these will likely be accepted parts of our society in our lifetimes. How do we know? Because all of these things were accepted parts of civilized society before the invasion of Christianity.

When Christ came into the lives of the first generations of believers they were radically changed. No place was this transformation more evident than in the areas of sexual purity and marital relationships. Let’s start with marriage.

The word translated honor means, “Held as of great price, esteemed, especially dear.” A suggested literal translation of Hebrews 13:4a is, “Let marriage be precious to all of you.” Marriage being held in honor, marriage being seen as precious, was not a trait in the New Testament era among secular people, nor has it been since, except where true Christianity has been held sway.

Going hand in glove with the low esteem of marriage has always been the low esteem of women. Where women are devalued, naturally marriage is devalued. A famous quote from ancient Greek leader Apollodorus, while certainly exaggerated, nevertheless demonstrates well the Greek view of women and marriage during these times, “Hetairai (courtesans) we have for the sake of sexual gratification, pallakai (concubines) in order to take care of our bodies and look after us when we are ill, but lawfully wedded wives we have for the sake of producing legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our property at home.”[1]

During seventeenth century Russia, a nation steeped with a perverted and superstitious form of Christianity rather than the real thing, women were treated in a similar way. In Robert Massie's excellent biography, Peter the Great, we read of this pagan concept of women,

A woman was regarded as a silly, helpless child, intellectually void, morally irresponsible and, given the slightest chance, enthusiastically promiscuous…. Once married, the new wife assumed her place in her husband’s home, as an animate domestic chattel, and possessed no rights except through him. Her functions were to look after his house, see to his comfort and bear his children. If she had sufficient talent, she ruled as mistress over the servants; if not, in the master’s absence the servants took charge without asking or telling her anything…. If the husband was not happy, there were procedures for improving his situation. In most cases, where only a mild correction was necessary, he could beat her…. Sometimes the beatings were so severe that the woman died; then the husband was free to remarry…. [Divorce was also common but] The Orthodox Church permitted a man two dead wives or two divorces, but his third wife had to be his last.[2]

A mark of true Christianity should be the understanding that marriage is honorable, it is precious. When God is not being truly honored among those who claim to be His people, you will find that marriage is not given priority, and it is placed on the back burner, even despised. Divorce today among those claiming to be evangelical believers is almost identical with that of the secular community. These things ought not to be. Too many identify with Groucho Marx who said, “I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury."

SEXUAL PURITY

When the author of Hebrews told his readers to keep the marriage bed undefiled he was using the word "bed" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Adultery, in this same verse, has reference to unfaithfulness of someone who is married, while fornication (porneia) is a general term used of any form of sexual impurity. Again, this was radical stuff when the New Testament was being written. Few men considered any form of sexual practice as off limits (of course they had other rules for their wives). During the time of Alexander the Great, homosexual activity was considered natural, even for heterosexual men.[3] The Romans followed the same idea, indulging their whims whenever possible.[4] Throughout much of history children were considered sexual toys, and no one thought much of it.[5]

Into this cesspool of a world the message of redeeming grace entered, and with it a whole new standard of purity. The gravity of this was not immediately recognized as we see in 1 Corinthians 6:11-18, where even Christian men saw no wrong in visiting the temple prostitutes. But as Christianity spread throughout the world whole cultures were changed. Marriage became precious and honored, women were viewed as equal human beings, children were protected and kept pure, all forms of sexual conduct outside of marriage were condemned, purity was lifted high, and when someone failed the consequences were awful. It is true that sometimes the church went too far. Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter, the events of which most likely never happened, is an example. For her one sin, Hester Piney would be forever doomed to wear a scarlet “A” on her clothing so that all would know of her adultery. No forgiveness and reconciliation was possible.

While we all recognize the unbiblical nature of unforgiveness, the pendulum has certainly swung to the other side. Today, everything from advertisements to TV shows to music is saturated with immoral sexuality. It is so prevalent that we are forced, to some degree, to grow callous to it. Our sensitivities cannot be shocked constantly and survive. But what if we had lived underground since the 1950's and suddenly showed up in the 21st century? What Billy Graham has said about contemporary writers is true of so many areas, “Their writings are like the drippings of a broken sewer.”

David Wells has documented that illegitimacy in America has increased 400 percent since 1960. “In 1990, in the worst pocket of illegitimacy in our society, 65.2% of Black children were born to unmarried mothers. Once the illegitimacy rate rises above 26 percent, Charles Murray estimates, poverty becomes endemic and virtually irreversible. This is exactly the point at which White America has now arrived.” The divorce rate has increased 200 percent during the same period with the results that less than 60 percent of children live with both of their biological parents. While violent crime has declined somewhat recently, it has done so from lofty heights. From 1960 to 1990 violent crime had risen 560 percent and the rate of teen suicide 200 percent. In addition, millions of unborn children have lost their lives since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973.[6] Even today, wherever Christianity has not permeated a culture it is normal for both women and marriage to be dishonored.

As bad as all this is, it gets worse, for God will not forever look the other way while people ignore His command for purity. In fact He will judge such sins. Judgment comes in two forms. There is the temporary and natural judgment that we are already experiencing as a society. We are surrounded with broken homes, unwanted children, venereal disease, AIDS, etc. “It is not possible to live and act against the moral grain of the universe established by God and not suffer terrible consequences (Ephesians 5:3),” John MacArthur reminds us. Then there is eternal judgment. We need to carefully read 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Ephesians 5:5,6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7; Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 to recognize that those who claim to be Christians and live in continual immorality are only fooling themselves. It is possible for a Christian to fall into moral sin, but he will not perpetually live a lifestyle of immorality. It is possible for us to fall into a pigpen, but it is not possible for us to become pigs.

This was all new and revolutionary in the first century. Chastity in that society was unreasonable and seemed impossible. Yet, Christians transformed by the Holy Spirit and empowered for holiness did the impossible. They lived in a world far more saturated by sex and immorality than ours and they lived above the filth. This was one of the things that drew people to them. How could these Christians be so different from everyone else? How could they live morally? By what power had they been transformed so that they lived in purity in the midst of an unholy people with joy and enthusiasm for their God?

Talk about a witnessing method. Talk about lifestyle evangelism. Their transformed lives in the areas of morals were like a magnet either calling these broken and sinful people to Christ, or else repelling them. Could it be our turn? As our world turns darker and more morally perverse, could it be that the light of our purity becomes the best evangelistic weapon in our arsenal?

While it is highly unlikely that America is going to become more moral anytime soon, our opportunity to show forth the beauty of God’s holiness in our lives is unprecedented in recent history. The question is, will our lives exhibit a lifestyle so radically different from those around us that the purity of God is showcased?

Is your purity evident in your marriage? In your treatment of the opposite sex? In your language and joking at work? In your TV and movie watching? In your music? In the way you dress? God calls His followers to a life of purity that should be clearly evident to a watching world.