However, if there is one concern I have with the movement, I might say that there is a danger of a pendulum swing. As a reactive measure against the idea that you must work really hard to earn God’s love (a frustrating and often false gospel), it seems we are saying that obedience has no connection to your day-to-day walk with God. I’m not sure this is either helpful for biblical. Let me explain.

I was recently listening to a message by J.D. Greear, lead pastor of Summit Church and author of several books including, Gospel. I love J.D.’s preaching, his clarity and his love for God and the gospel and missions. I’ve listened to several of his sermons that have really challenged and convicted me.

I was listening to a sermon he gave to the Southern Seminary Chapel entitled, “How Real Spiritual Growth Happens.” It’s a terrific message that I highly commend. But I left with a few questions. Particularly I wondered if we are not being clear enough about the distinction between God’s love and God’s favor.

J.D. was right in saying that humans are oriented toward works righteousness, that our default thinking is, “I’m messed up my life. God hates me now.” Or “I’ve had a really good week with the Lord. He loves me this week.” And so we guilt ourselves into what we are supposed to do for God rather than grounding our obedience in what God is, the radiance of His glory, and the radical nature of his sacrifice on our behalf. I agree with this.

What puzzled me a bit was J.D. talking about worship experience in church. There are Sundays, he says, when you walk into church and you’ve had a great week–you were faithful in your Bible reading, you were fervent in prayer, you shared Christ with others–and so you feel God’s love and glory wash over you. Then there are Sundays when you walk into church and you’ve had a rough week, you’ve had an argument with your spouse, you’re boss yelled at you for messing up the reports, you kicked the dog, etc. And you, while worshipping, start making promises to God, “I’ll get this right. I’ll do better.” You feel a bit of a disconnect from God. I’ve had these experiences all of my Christian life. J.D. says that this is the result of a faulty view of God’s love. We think he loves us more when we’ve had a great week and He’s mad at us when we’ve had a bad week.

This is often true, but I wonder if we’ve skipped over another reason for a bit of distance in our connection with God. Could it be that we enter worship with unconfessed sin? And the dissonance we experience is the result of a break in our relationship? Psalm 68:18 says, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” The Apostle John urges us in 1 John 1:8-10 to not ignore unconfessed sin, to rush to the Lord, prevail upon His grace, and find renewal in our relationship.

Sin breaks the relationship we have with God. It doesn’t negate God’s love. It doesn’t lessen God’s love. But it does cloud our view of God’s love and make us feel as if God loves us less even though He doesn’t. I think this is the difference between the love of God and the favor of God.

There is nothing you can do to earn the love of God. Obeying God faithfully for your whole life doesn’t earn you one more ounce of His love. He loves you and accepts you because of Christ. He has accepted the perfection and sacrifice of Christ for you and so you have nothing left to prove.

However, God does extend favor, I believe, to those who obey Him. All through the Scriptures you see the reward of God toward those who follow his precepts (Psalm 5:12; Psalm 90:17; Genesis 6:8; Proverbs 18:22). That doesn’t mean obedience helps you avoid trials and suffering–those too are often good gifts of God to shape our character. But you can safely and biblically say that those who obey the Lord will experience more blessing and favor than those who don’t.

I’m guessing J.D. Greear would agree with this and perhaps it was just his emphasis on law in that particular message. But I do think the gospel-centered movement would do well to further explain the purpose of the law, the need for obedience, and the importance of holiness. It doesn’t affect the way God loves us, but it does affect the way we view God’s love. Another way of stating this might be to say that when we sin, we have lost sight of the gospel and God’s glory and have chosen other idols to worship. Therefore we get the sense that God loves us less and we feel disconnected from Him because our view is clouded by the sin of idolatry.

While I realize some people take a full manuscript with them when they preach, I am not one of those guys. I take an outline of what I’m going to say because it helps me to remain focused throughout my time of preaching or teaching. During the middle of the small group I realized I was focusing too much on my notes and not enough on ministering to the people present through the Word. This experience taught me a valuable experience which is the point of this post. Notes aren’t bad, they help me to stay focused, but it’s better to be Spirit-dependent, Word-saturated and drenched in prayer.

Before I preached a sermon for my preaching class in front of family and friends a few weeks back the associate Pastor at my local Church told me to love the Word and love people. These words, “Love the Word and love people” have been bouncing around in my head so much lately as I recently accepted a pastoral internship at my local Church to learn from Pastor Rick and Pastor Matt.

I was recently asked by a friend what I thought when preachers preach from notes or don’t use notes. What I told him is I don’t care if a preacher uses notes or doesn’t use notes as long as their confidence is in the Gospel and they are confident in what they are preaching or teaching.

On April 26^th, 2012 at the small group, I learned an important lesson that whether I’m preaching a sermon or teaching a small group study having notes is important, but not all important. For me, having notes helps me to not go off on tangents. I’ve also learned that I need to be aware that I can rely too much on my notes at the expense of being dependent on the Spirit as I minister the Word. Whether preachers or teachers use notes or not is not the focus of my post, but my point is whether you use a full manuscript, an outline or no notes at all make sure you make much of Jesus by being Spirit-reliant, Word-saturated and drench yourself in prayer as you preach and teach the Word of God to the people of God.

The lesson I learned on April 26^th, 2012 is one that will stay with me the rest of my life as I continue to mature not only as a communicator but as a Christian. The focus of Christian preaching and teaching should be on preaching Christ and Him crucified in the power of the Holy Spirit. The goal of Christian preaching isn’t just to give an information dump or lecture, but rather to preach the Word in such a way that believers and non-Christians are confronted with their own sin and the truth about what Jesus has done in His death, burial and resurrection. In other words, the Gospel isn’t a suggestion nor is it secondary. The Bible teaches that the Gospel is of first importance (1 Cor. 15:1-4), and the “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans. 1:16). “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Loving the Word and loving people is important even vital to growing in maturity in ministering to the people of God, but as I learned in teaching small group it’s not only loving the Word and loving people that’s important; its loving the Word, loving people and relying on the power of God in the Gospel through the Spirit to minister to the people of God. Whether you use notes or no notes at all in your preaching or teaching isn’t the issue. The issue is are you Word-saturated in your teaching, Spirit-dependent as you prepare and as you teach, and do you spend significant time drenching yourself in prayer with your Savior before you preach and teach.

As you continue to grow in your relationship with the Lord Jesus, I encourage you to saturate your heart and mind in the Word of God, to increasingly depend on the Spirit to instruct you in the Truth of His Word (as He promises to do) and spend quality time growing in an abiding relationship with our Risen Savior the Lord Jesus Christ who bought you with His own blood and rose again to give you new life. The more you saturate your heart and mind in the Word, the more you rely on the Spirit and grow in your prayer life; the more the Lord will use your teaching to bless the people of God and equip them to serve Him in His mission of seeking and saving the lost, and making disciples to the glory of His name.

Here are five reasons why I feel Christians should be members of a local church. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but these reasons give Christians a biblical framework to think through why they should be members of a local Church.

First, The Bible clearly teaches that God made a distinction between His people and the world (Lev 13:46; Number 5:3; Deut. 7:3).  Christ says that entering the Kingdom of God means being bound to the Church “on earth” (Matthew 16:16-19; 18:17-19). The New Testament refers to some people being inside the church and some people being outside the church. (1 Cor. 5:12-13). The church in Corinth consisted of a definite number of believers, such that Paul could speak of a punishment inflicted by the majority (2 Cor. 2:6). Not only does the New Testament speak of the reality of church membership, but its dozens of “one another” passages are written to local churches. The “one another” passages in the New Testament fill out our understanding of what church members should look like practically. Biblical church membership is important, because the church presents God’s witness to Himself in the world, and displays His glory. In the church’s membership, then non-Christians should see in the lives of God’s changed people that God is holy and gracious and that His gospel is powerful for saving and transforming sinners.

Second, the Epistles were all written to local churches. A brief sampling of Paul’s epistles make this abundantly clear:  1 Corinthians 1:1-2, “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:” 2 Corinthians 1:1-2, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus  by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia.” Philippians 1:1-2, “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.” Galatians 1:1-2, “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:” 1 Thessalonians 1:1-2, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.”

Third, Christ saves Christians to live in community with other believers. Christ calls believers to local church membership not just for our spiritual growth, but also so that they may use their spiritual gifts in the context of the local Church.

Fourth, some people think that meeting together with other Christians is not important because the early Church only gathered in small groups inActs 2:42-48. The problem with this view is ignores history. As the Church continued to grow, they gathered together in large gatherings. There were small group meetings but there were large gatherings. Regardless of if the local Church meets in a building or in a home it doesn’t matter. The Church is comprised of people who been regenerated by the work of the Spirit. The people of God are to gather to worship together in Spirit and Truth, to hear the preached Word, participate in communion, baptism, and then scatter to spread the Great Commission in their families, neighborhoods, cities and to the nations.

While many people have a problem with the Church the Bible clearly teaches that professing Christians are to be members of local Churches. While local Churches may have many issues, the Church itself is purchased by Christ and is therefore blameless. The members inside the Church are justified and yet sinners meaning they are made right with God through the blood of Jesus but still growing in Christ-like character and going forth in Christ’s name to their families, neighborhoods, cities and to the nations with the Gospel.

Finally, those who object the loudest to this kind of teaching think that they can be Christians and not be in the Church. From even from a cursory examination of the Scriptures- the lone-ranger view of being a Christian is not biblical. Christ saves Christians to live in community with other believers. Christ calls believers to membership in the local Church not only for their own spiritual growth but to use our spiritual gifts in the context of the local Church.

Christ calls other Christians to live in community with other Christians for the purpose of accountability, and spiritual growth. Christ calls Christians to live in community with other believers so they will grow in likeness to Jesus Christ. Christ calls Christians to live in community with other believers so that believers may minister in and through their local churches in order to reach one’s community, city, nation and the world with the Gospel.

Finally, Christ doesn’t save sinners so they will live in isolation or be lone-rangers—He saves them so that they will be in community with one another, speaking the truth in love to one another, “one anothering” each other, and displaying forth His character, and glory to a watching, but unbelieving world.

In a fairly recent book titled The Interaction of Law and religion (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), Harold J. Berman, professor of law at Harvard University has developed a significant thesis. He notes that Western culture has had a massive loss of confidence in law and in religion. One of the most important causes of this double loss of confidence is the radical separation that has been made between the two. Berman concludes that you cannot have workable rules for behavior without religion, because only religion provides and absolute base on which morality and law can be based. The author fears that western society is doomed to relativism in law because of the loss of an absolute. When men break away from the idea of an authoritative religion, and even from the concept of god, they break away from the possibility of absolute truth. Their only remaining resource is existential relativism, a slippery, unstable, and ever-changing base on which no authoritative system or law can be built. Religionless law can never command authority.

In that book Professor Berman notes that “Thomas Franck of New York University has observed that law in contrast to religion “has become undisguised a pragmatic human process. It is made by men and it lays no claim to divine origin or eternal validity.” (p.27). Berman says that this observation:

Leads professor Franck to the view that a judge, in reaching a decision, is not propounding a truth that is rather experimenting in the solution of a problem, and if his decision is reversed by a higher court or if it is subsequently overruled, that does not mean it was wrong but only that it was, or became in the course of time, unsatisfactory. Having broken away from religion, Franck states, law is now characterized by “existential relativism.” Indeed, it is now generally recognized “that no judicial decision is ever ‘final,’ that the law both follows the event (is not eternal or certain) and is made by man (is not divine or True.” (pp.27-28).

Professor Berman goes on to ask, “If law is merely an experiment, and if judicial decisions are only hunches, why should individuals or groups of people observe those legal rules or commands that do not conform to their own interests?” (p.280).

He is right. Rules without absolutes are rules without authority, except the authority of force and coercion. When God is abandoned, truth is abandoned; and when truth is abandoned, the basis for morals and law is abandoned. A consistent coherent legal system cannot be built oh philosophical humanism, on the principle that right and wrong fluctuate according to man’s ideas and feelings.

If there is no religious absolute there can be no basis for real law. People will not respect or long obey laws that are only judicial guesses. An evil, godless society, floating about on a sea of relativism, realizes that it has no foundation, no anchor, no unmoving point of reference. Law becomes a matter of preference and order a matter of power. A democracy where power is ultimately vested in the people is particularly vulnerable to chaos.

Is there an absolute basis for truth, for law, for morals, for real right and wrong; and if so, what is it? Those questions are the essence of what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:17-20. The absolute, He says is the law of the eternally sovereign God. God has laid down His absolute, eternal, abiding law and made it known to men. And as God’s own Son, Jesus declared unequivocally that He did not come to teach or practice anything contrary to that law in even the slightest way, but to uphold it entirely.

Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  Christ’s opponents even now had begun to regard him as a destructive revolutionist, an iconoclast who wanted to break every tie with the past (John 5:18). This attitude toward Jesus never left them but rather grew on them (Matt. 26:59-61).

The opponents were wrong. Did the scribes and Pharisees demand good works? So did Jesus (5:16). Did they hold Moses in high regard? So did he (8:4). The righteousness which he proclaimed was not a novelty. It was in and through harmony with that enunciated in the Old Testament; that is, in “the law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16). Here in 5:17, however, in order to emphasize each in its own right, the term is used “the law or the prophets,” the Pentateuch or the rest of the Old Testament.

Jesus, then, as he begins to set forth “the righteousness of the kingdom,” immediately dismisses the charge of his enemies that he is a proclaimer of novelties, and shows that his ministry was not in collision with the Old Testament but in harmony with it; in fact, that without him the Old Testament was incomplete, unfulfilled. Peter, too, on Pentecost interpreted the strange things that were transpiring round about him as a fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2). And Paul also links the new with the old, making clear that his doctrine of justification by grace through faith was not something altogether new but was firmly rooted in Old Testament teaching (Rom. 3:21; chap. 4; 7:7; chaps. 9-11; Gal. 3:6-22; 4:21-31).

Calvin commenting on Matt. 5:17, makes this application: “If we intend to reform affairs that are in a state of disarray we should always exercise such prudence and moderation as will convince the people that we are not opposing the eternal Word of God, or introducing any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care that no suspicion of such conflict shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty.”

Actually the honor which Jesus bestowed on “the law and the prophets” was higher by far than in which it was held by the scribes and the Pharisees. They buried the divine oracles under a load of tradition and regarded the doing of the law to be the only way to obtain salvation. Therefore in reality they were the ones who were setting aside the Old Testament. With Jesus the case was entirely different. When he (5:16) demands good works he addresses this exhortation to those who had previously been pronounced “blessed” (Matt. 5:2-12; Luke 6:20-23).

According to the beatitudes these people, had received from God the righteousness of imputation and impartation. In such a context “good works” are works of gratitude for salvation already received. Thus the law was in principle being fulfilled, and so were the prophets, in which the demand of the law was reaffirmed. It is clear therefore that it was Jesus—not the opponent—who had the right to affirm ,”I have not come to set aside but to fulfill.” It was his aim that in the lives of his true followers the spiritual requirements of the Old Testament would receive its due, that is, that in these lives the vessel of the law’s (hence also of the prophets’) demand would become filled to the brim.

However, it does not appear that the explanation so far fully satisfied the meaning of the passage. It is hard for him to believe that in saying, “I have not come to set aside but to fulfill” Jesus was thinking only of fulfillment in his followers. It would rather seem that he was referring to the law’s fulfillment both in his own experience and increasingly in the experience of his followers. This brings the passage in harmony with other such saying of Jesus in which he presents himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament; not only with the words uttered at a much later time (Matt. 26:56), but also and especially with those that probably belong to the very year when this sermon was delivered.

It is hard to believe that he who had very recently revealed himself to the woman of Samaria as the realization of mankind’s hope (John 4:25-26, 42), and who very shortly should describe himself to John the Baptist and to the people of Nazareth as the fulfillment of prophecy, would in this sermon have been able, without thinking of any realization in himself, to speak about fulfilling the Old Testament.

Now if the fulfillment was to be in relation to himself, also, then it was to be with respect to his teaching only, setting forth the true meaning of the law and revealing himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and predications, so that he would stand out as the chief prophet (Deut. 18:15). Or with respect to his vicarious suffering and death along, by which through his active and passive obedience he would satisfy the demands of the law as his people’s sympathetic high priest. Or exclusively with respect to his royal rule, thereby delivering his people from the power of the enemy and hold sway over their lives as their eternal king. But why not all three? Does not the Old Testament itself lead the way to a full interpretation of the concept “Messianic Fulfillment” when in describing the coming Redeemer it does not always restrict itself to the manner in which he would function in one office?

In all he was and was to do He had come not to set aside or annul the Old Testament but to fulfill it. The context does not require any restriction to be made as to the meaning of this majestic statement in 5:17. Moreover, the passage itself, by means of its disjunctive “or” (the law or the prophets” instead of “the law and the prophets”) emphasizes breadth of meaning, causing the mind to linger a little longer on the two distinct parts, and probably indicating that Jesus had not come either to lift the demands of the law or to invalidate the words, including the predictions, of the prophets. He had come to fulfill both.

“I have come,” said Jesus. This indicates that he was full conscious of his Messianic mission, and in close connection with it, of his pre-existence. This doctrine of pre-existence is therefore not peculiar to John, and Paul. Though not as abundantly it is nevertheless taught clearly in the Synoptics.

Over and over again the New Testament tells us that the law could not make anyone righteous. Jesus had to do what the law could not. “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.”(Gal. 3:24). The law only pointed to righteousness, but Christ gives us righteousness, his own righteousness.

The judicial law and the ceremonial law were fulfilled and set aside. They ended at the cross. But the moral law fulfilled by Christ is still being fulfilled through His disciples. Because Christ fulfilled the law, so can those who belong to Him. God sent “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:3-4). When we walk in the Spirit we fulfill the righteousness of the law, because Christ in us fulfills it with His own righteousness which He gave to us.

Joseph in Genesis 39 in his dealings with Potiphar’s wife provides men with an excellent example of what it means to walk with integrity and purity before the Lord. The Lord’s presence with Joseph enables him to find favor first with Potiphar and the keeper of the prison. While Joseph’s refusal to lie with Potiphar’s wife results in his being wrongly imprisoned, his personal integrity is not compromised.

Explanation of Genesis 39:6-23

Genesis 39:6-23 records the scene between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Genesis 39:6 says that Joseph was handsome in form and appearance which gives the reason Potiphar’s wife was interested in him. Joseph’s refusal to lie meaning sexually with her contrasts sharply with the behavior of Reuben and Judah (35:22: 38:15-18). His integrity does not permit him to betray his master by committing adultery.

Joseph rightly recognizes that to give in to Potiphar’s wife not only would be an offense against is master, who has trusted him with everything he owns, but would equally be an offense against God. Joseph exercises authority without seeing this as an opportunity to betray or exploit others. Joseph consistently rejects the advances of Potiphar’s wife. One day Potiphar’s wife in the course of Joseph’s normal work catches him by his garment and Joseph fleeing leaves his garment in her hand.

While Potiphar is still absent Genesis 39:13-15 explain that his wife convinces the men of her household to side with her. She uses three elements to bring her case against Joseph. First she places some of the blame of her husband for he was responsible for Joseph’s presence in the household. Secondly by emphasizing Joseph’s non-Egyptian origin, she exploits a long-standing racial tension that existed between native Egyptians and foreign from Canaan. Finally she portrays Joseph’s action as being directed against the entire household and not simply her.

Potiphar’s wife uses Joseph’s garment as evidence Genesis 39:16 says. Potiphar’s wife tells to her husband with significant variations what she has already told the men of the household. Once again she focuses on the non-Egyptian background of Joseph, her husband’s poor judgment in bringing him into the household and Joseph’s exploitation of her.  The swiftness with which the narrator reports the imprisonment mirrors what happened in reality. As a slave, Joseph had no legal rights. While the reader is not immediately conscious of the significance of Joseph being imprisoned where the king’s prisoners were confirmed (V.20) this will prove significant for future developments. Even in prison Joseph prospers (v.23).

Integrity and Purity

Joseph refused to sin against the trust given him, the woman’s husband and God himself. Joseph’s integrity was one of fabric. He was faithful in all relationships, which meant he could resist being unfaithful in this instance. This story is not just about sexual fidelity Joseph’s life was a web of moral accountability. He saw his moral life s a unified, integrated whole. His overall faithfulness has helped him reject this massive temptation. We must understand that little sin pave the way to big sins and that Joseph was on no such path. It was the power of this quality of his life as a whole that enabled him to resist the woman’s advances.

The great deterrent to falling to the sexual siege was Joseph’s awareness that God was with him—not because of the narrator’s voice over but because this is what God has repeatedly promised Joseph’s forefathers and had been his personal awareness all of his life. The grant deterrent to Joseph’s sinning was the awareness that God sees all and that a sin that no one knows about, committed behind lock doors in a dark room, is actually done in the presence of a holy God. Joseph believed this, This personal realization and conviction of this truth is the strongest deterrent to sin that there is. King David invoked it after the horror of his own sin ravaged soul: “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:3; 4a).

Joseph continued to resist Potiphar’s advances but she was not giving up. “And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her” (v.10). Her dialogue plumbed every angle, but he paid her no heed. The Mrs. Potiphar’s of today are at once material, phantasmal, and ubiquitous- in airbrushed photos, celluloid, videos, and luminous TV screens. Those who are wise refuse to lie beside her or to be with her (v.10).

Conclusion

We learn from Joseph that temptation to sin is everywhere.  The story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife teaches us that to walk as men of integrity, we must take seriously the fact that the  presence of the Lord goes with them wherever they go. Integrity and purity are in the details of life. The Gospel has been given for such a reason—to guard believers against sin and temptation so that men might be men of integrity. The Lord provides a way of escape out of every temptation but the men  must walk through the way of escape by running into the arms of safety in Christ.

In order to fight against sin and temptation men must daily appropriate who they are in Christ by taking every thought captive to the obedience of the Word of God. Men must preach the Gospel to themselves not just in the midst of temptation but before temptation even begins. It would also be helpful for men to close Christian brothers they can call to pray with them and encourage them in the Lord. While accountability and living in community in a local Church are important- the best way to fight against sin and temptation is to grow in the grace of God by growing in depth of understanding and insight of the Gospel and its implications on one’s life. By growing in the grace of God men will be able to fight against sin and temptation through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and be a man of integrity and purity.

Leading Muslims to Jesus Questions to Consider by The Gospel Coalition http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/13/leading-muslims-to-jesus-questions-to-consider/

A Critical Mind Vs A Critical spirit by Trevin Wax http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/05/14/a-critical-mind-vs-a-critical-spirit/

4 Functions of Sound Doctrine by Aaron Armstrong http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2012/05/14/4-functions-of-sound-doctrine/

The first contributor, Dr. Kevin Bauder, a fundamentalist who believes that evangelicalism, should be defined by minimal and maximal Christian fellowship. Minimal Christian fellowship is based on the fundamentals of the faith. Maximal Christian fellowship focuses on the fact that while Christians are united by the Word of God and can fellowship with other Christians, on a minimal level, they must “limit their cooperation” on other levels and separate “from Christian leaders who will not separate from apostates” (37,40).

The second contributor, Dr. Albert Mohler argues that evangelicalism should be confessional, because it can only defined by a center-bound set as a “coherent movement only if it is also known for what it is not, because these boundaries help one to be clear about what the gospel is and is not” (95-96). This helps Christians to avoid dividing over issues not related to the Gospel by focusing their energy on issues directly related to the Gospel. The third contributor is Dr. John Stackhouse chapter is on generic evangelicalism and states that evangelicalism cannot be defined, because “the definition of authentic and healthy Christian is inherently contestable” (141). The final contributor Dr. Roger Olson wants to have a big tent evangelicalism, because he sees evangelicalism as having “no definable boundaries” (163).

The remainder of this review will focus not on the strengths and weakness of each view, but set forth the fact that confessional evangelicalism in the words of B.B. Warfield “stands or falls with Calvinism.”[1] By evangelicalism, Warfield was referring to what the German Lutherans meant when they used the term during the Protestant Reformation: a church founded on the gospel, the good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. When Warfield spoke of “Calvinism,” he referred to the Protestant Reformation and its insistence on justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. Evangelicalism stands for the gospel and Calvinism stands for grace. Warfield was pointing out what every Christian should and must believe: the gospel stands or falls by grace. Warfield recognized that the gospel is not really the gospel unless it is a gospel of grace which means, the gospel is only good news if it announces what God has done to save sinners. If that is true, then the gospel of grace stands or falls with the doctrines of grace.

The most helpful way to think through what it means to be an evangelical is to understand the theological categories of catholic, evangelical, and Reformed. In For Calvinism, Dr. Horton points out that “there is only the Christian faith, which is founded on the teachings of the prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone.” (page 25). First, “all Christians are catholic—that is, a living expression of Christ’s visible church that affirms the ecumenical creeds on the basis of Scripture” (Horton, 27). Second, evangelicals are those who “believe, confess, and spread the good news of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ” (Horton, 27). Finally the keys of the Reformation are: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), salvation by grace alone (Sola Gratia) in Christ alone (Solo Christo), through faith alone (Sola Fide). Consequently, all of the glory goes to God alone (Soli Deo Gloria). “Every distinctive feature of Reformed theology or Calvinism is aimed at clarifying and defending this evangelical core of Christianity, with the goal of reconciling sinners to God in Christ for true worship of the triune God” (Horton, 28). “The purest and most consistent expression of evangelicalism resides within the halls of Calvinism” (Nettles, 20).

Regardless of how one views evangelicalism, The Four Views On The Spectrum Of Evangelicalism will help its readers to think through which version of evangelicalism they fall on, fundamentalists, confessional, generic, or postconservative evangelicals. This debate is not trivial, nor is it merely academic, as all (including evangelicals) will give an account for how we respond to the evangel, which means Christians need to heed to heed Paul’s teaching to the Philippians in Philippians 1:27, “Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

The “god” of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The “god” who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form “gods” out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a “god” out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A “god” whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits naught but contempt.

God’s Will is a biblical and practical exploration into what divine guidance is and will help the people of God to build upon a solid foundation for understanding how and why God guides His people. In God’s Will the reader will discover the role of Scripture, discernment, wisdom, the counsel of others and the Holy Spirit help in discovering God’s will.

The authors note that “during the past century and a half, the topic of guidance from God has become a focus of fear among many Christians” (10). One of the biggest reasons for this struggle is because of how people view God. Many Christians view God as some genie in the bottle that if they pray to Him He will answer all their prayers. Yes, God answers prayer, but He doesn’t do it on our timetable. For example often times when I pray for patience, God sends me a trial to test my patience. When I pray for an open opportunity to share the Gospel, God doesn’t give me an easy person to minister to but sends a difficult person. Rather than viewing Him as the Lord of Creation, many Christians instead worship the god of chance and luck.

God’s Will was written to address the fear many believers have regarding knowing God’s Will. Throughout the book, the authors guide Christians by grounding their arguments in helpful biblical and theological categories that will help Christians to understand what God’s will is. After doing this they give a process whereby Christians can understand God’s Will. At the heart of all the authors teach is the belief that “through Scripture, wisdom, and help from fellow believers, Christians are prompted and sustained by the Spirit” (232). The Holy Spirit joins with the Father to further the glory of the Good Shepherd. “The Holy Spirit exerts the full power of creation to achieve the fullness of new creation in every believer’s life and to bring to each one a full perception of the guidance of God” (232).

God’s Will is a very helpful book that will help new or mature Christians. Written by one of the greatest Christian minds of the past century, God’s Will helps its readers to cut through the fog of what God’s will is by addressing Christians’ anxiety about guidance and decision making by taking them to the Word of God. The book not only does this with excellence, but it explains how the Holy Spirit is at work in their lives to help them to grow to be like Jesus.

This biblically faithful, theological robust and practical book will shepherd those who struggle with understanding God’s will by pointing them to the Good Shepherd—the Lord Jesus Christ. Read God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Everyday Decisions and learn from an experienced theologian on how and why God guides His people.

Title: God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Everyday Decisions

Author: J.I. Packer and Carolyn Nystrom

Publisher: Baker Books (2012)

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Baker Books as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

In the beatitudes the character and blessedness of the citizens of the kingdom were described. The final beatitude was transitional in character. It describes the attitude of the world toward believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. The “two emblems,” salt and light, now introduced, describe the opposite, namely, the influence of the kingdom upon the world, the response of Christ’s followers to those who persecute them. By means of these two emblems or metaphors the important truth is revealed that those people whom the world—including even the quasi-pious world of scribes and Pharisees- hates most are exactly the ones to whom it owes most. The citizens of the kingdom, no matter how despised they are and how insignificant they may seem to be, they alone, not the scribes and the Pharisees, are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

The words of Matthew 5:13-16 show both how totally different from the world and yet how closely related to the world believers are. Worldly-mindness or secularization is here condemned, but so is also aloofness or isolationism. Salt is a blessing when it remains truly salt; light, as long as it is really light. But salt must be sprinkled over, better still, rubbed into, the meat. Light must be allowed to shine into the darkness. It must not be put undercover.

As to salt, Jesus says in verse 13, “You are the salt of the earth.” Though salt has many characteristics,: whiteness, pungency, flavor, preservative power, etc., it is probably especially the last quality, the potency of salt as an antiseptic, a substance that prevents and retards decay, upon which the emphasis falls here, though the subsidiary function of imparting flavor must obviously not be excluded.

Salt, then, has especially a negative function. It combats deterioration. Similarly Christians, by showing themselves to be Christians indeed, are constantly combatting moral and spiritual decay. How often does it not happen that when a believer suddenly steps into a crowd of worldly individuals the off-color joke by which someone was about to entertain his companions is held back, the profanity is left unspoken, the wicked plan remains unexecuted? To be sure, the world is wicked. Yet god alone knows how far more corrupt it would be without the restraining example, life, and prayers of the saints (Gen. 18:26-32; 2 Kings 12:2).

Salt acts secretly. We know that it combats decay, though we cannot see is perform its task. Its influence is very real nonetheless.

“But if salt becomes tasteless, what will make it salt again? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot by men.” The salt from the marshes and lagoons or from the rocks in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea easily acquires a stale or alkaline taste, because of its mixture with gypsum, etc. It is then literally “good for nothing” but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot (Ezek. 47:11). Jesus, as he walked on earth, saw many Pharisees and scribes, people who advocated a formal, legalistic religion in the place of the true religion proclaimed by the ancient prophets in the name of the Lord. Thus by and large the salt had lost its flavor in the religious life of Israel. Many “sons of the kingdom” would be cast out (Matt. 8:12).

The implication is clear. Just as salt having lost its flavor cannot be restored, so also those who were trained in the knowledge of the truth but who then resolutely set themselves against the exhortations of the Holy Spirit and become hardened in their opposition are not renewed unto repentance (Matt. 12:32; Heb. 6:4-6). Therefore, let that which is named salt be salt indeed. Every so many people who never read the Bible are constantly reading us! If in our conduct we are untrue to our calling our words will avail very little.

We have seen that in the main salt has a negative function and acts secretly. Light, on the other hand, has a positive function and shines openly.

Jesus says in verse 14, “You are the light of the world.” Light in Scripture indicates the true knowledge of God (Ps. 36:9 Matt. 6:22-23); goodness, righteousness and truthfulness (Eph. 5:8-9); joy and gladness, true happiness (Ps. 97:11; Isa. 9:1-8; 6:19). It symbolizes the best there is in learning, love, and laughter, as contrasted with darkness, that is, the worst there is in quality—for instance, revealed knowledge—is emphasized; then again another, depending on the context in each case. In certain instances, the meaning of the word “light” may even be broader than any one quality would indicate. It may be sufficiently comprehensive to include all the blessings of salvation (Ps. 27:1; Luke 1:77-79).

The statement, “You are the light of the world” probably means that the citizens of the kingdom not only have been blessed with these endowments but are also the means used by God to transmit them to the men who surround them. The light-possessors become light-transmitters. Collectively believers are “the light.” Individually they are “lights”. Both ideas may well have been included in the words as spoken by Jesus, though the emphasis is on the collective.

However Christians are never a light in and by themselves. They are light “in the Lord” (Eph. 5:8). Christ is the true, the original “light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5, etc.). Believers are “the light of the world” in a secondary or derived sense. He is “the light lighting” (John 1:9). They are the light lighted. He is the sun. They resemble the moon, reflecting the sun’s light. Apart from Christ they cannot shine. The electric bulb does not emit light all by itself. It imparts light only when connected and turned on, so that the electric generated in the power-house is transmitted to it. So also as long as Christ’s followers remain in living contact with the original light they are a light to others (John 15:4-5).

Now since it is the business of the church to shine for Jesus, it should not permit itself to be thrown off its course. It is not the task of the church to specialize in and deliver all kinds of pronouncements concerning economic, social and political problems. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones comments, “The great hope for society today is in an increasing number of individual Christians. Let the Church of God concentrate on that and not waste her time and energy on matters outside of her province.” This is not to say that an ecclesiastical pronouncement revealing the bearing of the gospel upon this or that not specifically theological problem is always to be condemned. There may be situations in which such an illuminating public testimony becomes advisable and even necessary, for the gospel must be proclaimed “in all its fullness” and not narrowly restricted to the salvation of souls. But the primary duty of the church remains the spread forth of the message of salvation, that the lost may be found (Luke 15:4; 1 Cor. 9:16, 22; 10:33), those found may be strengthened in the faith (Eph. 4:15; 1 Thess. 3:11-13; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 3:18) and God may be glorified (John 17:4 1 Cor. 10:31). Those who through the example, message, and prayers of believers, have been converted will show the genuine character of their faith and love by exerting their influence for good in every sphere.

In connection with the symbol of light in Matthew 5:14b-16 two ideas are combined here: The followers of Christ must be both visible and radiant. They must be “in the light” and must also send out rays of light. The first idea is conveyed by the city situated on a hill. Such a city, with its walls and fortresses, “cannot be hidden.” It is clearly visible to everybody.

The second idea is set forth by the figure of a lamp set on a lampstand. Such a lamp “gives light”; it “shines.” The lamps of that day can be seen today in any large museum and in many private collections. These lamps are terra cotta saucer-shaped objects. They have a handle on one end; on the other a nozzle-shaped extension with a hole for a wick. In the top of the lamp’s upper surface there are two holes, one for adding oil, the other for air.

What Jesus is saying here, that no one would be foolish enough to light such a lamp—evidently for the purpose of illuminating the surroundings and then immediately place it under the peck-measure.  Any sensible person would of course set the lit lamp on the lampstand. Such a lampstand was generally a very simple object. It might be a shelf extending from the pillar in the center of the room (the pillar that supported the large cross-beam of the flat roof), or a single stone projecting inward from the wall, or a piece of metal conspicuously placed and used similarly. The point is that the lamp, already lit and placed on the stand, would give light “to everyone in the house.” This is understandable when it is remembered that the houses of the poor, the very people whom Jesus was addressing (Luke 6:20), had only one room.

Now what a lamp is to a house the follower of Christ should be to the world. A lighted lmap should be given the opportunity to send out its rays. Similarly the followers of Jesus should “let their light shine” in order that men may see their conduct, their “good works.” It is on these works, considered as products of faith (verse 17) that the Lord places the emphasis, for ‘actions speak louder than words.”

It is not at all necessary nor advisable in the present connection to make a separation between works done in obedience to the first table of the law and those performed in conformity with the second. In the teaching of Jesus these two go together even though it is true that the first is basic (Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:25-28). When such excellent works, of whatever nature are done out of gratitude for salvation obtained by grace through faith they are pleasing to God. This is true whatever they consist of taking hold of God in prayer (Matt. 6:6) and trusting him (Matt. 6:24-34), or of helping those in need (2534-40) and loving even one’s enemies (5:44).

That some of these good deeds are seen by men is unavoidable. Even unbelievers will at times hear the songs of praise sung by God’s children. Worldly people will take note of the quiet trust in God manifested by believers in times of trial and distress. They will at times express astonishment about the manner in which Christians will go out of their way, risking danger and even death in order to extend help to the sick and dying.

It is a fine thing that these good works are seen by men. That is exactly what Jesus wants. Rightly considered, it is even what those who perform them want, but not in order to gain honor for themselves, but in the sense of Matthew 6:1, 5, 16. On the contrary, Jesus says, “and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The end, therefore, and also to a certain extent the result, of seeing such good works, will be that men, influenced by God’s Spirit, will ascribe to God the reverence that is his due for having caused the light to shine forth from human lives (Isa. 24:15; 25:3; Ps. 22:23; 1 Cor. 10:31).

The purpose of letting our light shine and reveal our good works is not to bring attention or praise to ourselves but to God. Our intent should be that, in what we are and in what we do, others may see God in order that they may glorify our Father who is in heaven. Jesus’ speaking of the Father emphasizes God’s tenderness and intimacy, and speaking of His being in heaven emphasizes His majesty and holiness, as He is pictured dwelling in the splendor of His eternal glory home. Our good works are to magnify God’s grace and power. This is the supreme calling of life: glorifying God. Everything we do is to cause others to give praise to the God who is the source of all that is good. The way we live should lead those around us to glorify the heavenly Father.

When what we do causes people to be attracted to us rather than to God, to see our human character rather than His divine character, we can be sure that what they see is not His light.

It is said of Robert Murray McCheyne, a godly Scottish minister of the last century that his face carried such a hallowed expression that people were known to fall on their knees and accept Jesus Christ as Savior when they looked at him. Others were so attracted by the self-giving beauty and holiness of his life that they found his Master irresistible.

It was also said of the French pietist Francois Fenelon that his communion with God was such that his faced shined with divine radiance. A religious skeptic who was compelled to spend the night in an inn with Fenelon, hurried away the next morning saying, “If I spend another night with that I’ll be a Christian in spite of myself.”

That is the king of salt and light God wants His kingdom people to be.