A Journey in Dispensationalism is Now Available

I am pleased to announce that Dr. Belcher's latest theological novel, A Journey in Dispensationalism, is now available. Here is the description from the Richbarry Press website:

Theology sometimes can be very difficult to study, but it even becomes worse, when a student possesses a bad attitude about the subject! So what is Ira Pointer to do, when he is asked at his seminary to teach a private study with a young man who has a rotten attitude about it all, and the subject, as assigned by his advisor, is a view of a theology that he is very militant to defend? Such is the problem that Ira meets---a study with a recalcitrant student to teach him not only the questions concerning dispensationalism, but also a conciliatory attitude on the subject of prophecy, lest he graduate from seminary and tear a church or two apart over the teaching and defense of his favorite subject of dispensationalism, just because of a rotten attitude.

But then in the process of the course, the young man becomes a mystery, as Ira is kidnapped, beaten, stalked and threatened by someone, and he doesn't know who his assailant is. Could it be that the very student he is trying to teach and help is his tormentor? And why would someone carry on such a vendetta against Ira? Thus, it takes all the energy and thoughts of both Ira and Dink to seek to solve this mystery, and when they do, they are totally shocked as to who was behind it all and why!

You may obtain the book here.

Jesus' Model Prayer: A Teaching Outline

Introduction

Following is an overview of what has been commonly called "the Lord's Prayer." Actually, however, it may be best to call Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17 "the Lord's Prayer," because it is one of the best examples we have of an actual prayer of the Lord Himself.

I think this prayer might better be called "the Disciples' Prayer," because it is a model prayer given by Jesus for His disciples to pray. But, alas, it has been called “the Lord's Prayer” for so long that there is little chance of changing it.

At any rate, we will proceed with our overview of the Lord's Prayer under two main headings: 1) the context of the prayer, and 2) the content of the prayer. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture citations are from the New King James Version.

I. The Context of the Prayer

Matthew 6:9a "In this manner, therefore, pray ..."

First, the word therefore tells us that Jesus is offering a model prayer in response to the kind of praying He has already discussed in verses 5-8. If prayed sincerely, it avoids both of the errors He has already pointed out there:

1) It avoids the selfish praying of the hypocrites, who pray for their own glory (vs.2). The Lord's Prayer is about God's glory!

2) It avoids the vain repetitions of the heathen, who think they will be heard for their long-winded prayers (vs.7). The Lord's Prayer is direct and succinct.

Second, when Jesus says to pray in this manner, He is giving us an example of what our praying should be like, but is not necessarily assuming that we will simply repeat this exact prayer. However, He isn't saying we should never repeat it either. As a matter of fact, on another occasion He also taught essentially the same prayer and indicated that it was to be repeated as He gave it:

Luke 11:1-4 “Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, that one of His disciples said to Him, 'Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.' 2 So He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'” (Italics mine)

Third, the Greek text actually has both the 2nd person plural pronoun you and the 2nd person plural form of the verb translated pray. Jesus thus places an emphasis upon corporate prayer as well as the private prayer life He has so strongly emphasized already in verse 6. This is further emphasized in the opening of the prayer itself, in which we are told to address God as our Father (vs.9b).

Application: 1) Corporate prayer is just as important as private prayer, but should never be seen as a substitute for private prayer. In fact, given the order and emphasis of Jesus' discussion in this passage, corporate prayer should flow naturally out of a private prayer life. 2) Also, on the one hand, we should not feel obligated to pray this exact prayer in order to be heard by God, although we should see it as a model for our praying. On the other hand, we should delight in praying this very prayer at times, especially within the context of corporate worship, so long as we remember to pray it sincerely from our hearts.

Kent Hughes offers this helpful reminder:

The obvious problem for all of us is that “familiarity breeds contempt,” in this case “surface familiarity.” Some of us learned the Lord's Prayer at our mother's knees. We cannot count the times we have repeated it. We said it again and again as children. We repeat it today as adults. But there is a danger in our familiarity with its beauty – it can become just beautiful words, so that we “say” the Lord's Prayer without praying it. (The Sermon on the Mount, p.154)

Of course, gaining a better understanding of the prayer will help us to avoid this danger. So let's turn our attention now to ....

II. The Content of the prayer

The prayer itself is divided into two parts, the 1st of which seeks God's glory and the 2nd of which seeks our good. Then Jesus ends with an emphasis upon praying for our good for God's glory.

1. It is a Prayer for God's Glory

There are three petitions in this first half of the prayer, in which we are to seek 1) the glory of God's name, 2) the glory of God's kingdom, and 3) the glory of God's will.

1) The Glory of God's Name

Matthew 6:9b "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name."

We should begin praying by reminding ourselves of our relationship to God as our Father. Although he is already a holy God, and we are to pray that His name will be regarded as such by all, He has nevertheless graciously condescended to us sinners and made us His children.

Jesus teaches us that prayer is about a personal relationship with God.

2) The Glory of God's Kingdom

Matthew 6:10a "Your kingdom come."

As members of the Kingdom of Heaven, we should always remember when we pray that our lives are to be about advancing God 's kingdom. We cannot glorify Him as we should without at the same time seeking the furtherance of His sovereign reign in our own lives and in the lives of others. We should also always look forward to and pray for the ultimate coming of His Kingdom in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

3) The Glory of God's Will

Matthew 6:10b "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

We should always pray with a heart that is so desirous of obeying God and seeing His will accomplished that we are not satisfied unless His will is done – in our own lives and in the world – just as it is in Heaven.

Application: With these first three petitions Jesus teaches us that our ultimate priority must always be about seeking God's glory first in our lives. He shows us that if we are really God's children, then we will show this by honoring Him as our Father.

John Stott drives the point home well in his commentary on this passage:

It is comparatively easy to repeat the word's of the Lord's Prayer like a parrot (or indeed a heathen 'babbler'). To pray them with sincerity, however, has revolutionary implications, for it expresses the priorities of a Christian. We are constantly under pressure to conform to the self-centredness of secular culture. When that happens we become concerned about our own little name (liking to see it embossed on our notepaper or hitting the headlines in the press, and defending it when it is attacked), about our own little empire (bossing, 'influencing' and manipulating people to boost our ego), and about our own silly little will (always wanting our own way and getting upset when it is frustrated). But in the Christian counter-culture our top priority concern is not our name, kingdom and will, but God's. Whether we can pray these petitions with integrity is a searching test of the reality and depth of our Christian profession. (The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, p.147-148)

2. It is a Prayer for Our Good

The second half of the prayer also consists of essentially three petitions, in which we are to seek both our physical and spiritual good.

1) Our Physical Good

Matthew 6:11 "Give us this day our daily bread."

We are to daily recognize our dependence upon God as the one who ultimately meets all of our physical needs. And we are to express that dependence in prayer. In fact, if we cannot sincerely pray this way every day, haven't we really lost site of God as the sovereign Giver of all that we have? How easily we forget that the paycheck we earn, the food we eat every day, the car we drive, the house we live in, the clothes we wear, the beds we sleep in, etc. are all gifts from God.

Note: The term daily indicates that the prayer was intended as a model for daily praying, and thus that all these petitions should be daily petitions.

Thomas Constable, in his online Notes on Matthew, aptly observes:

Daily bread refers to the necessities of life, not its luxuries. This is a prayer for our needs, not our greeds. The request is for God to supply our needs day by day. The expression "this day [or today] our daily bread" reflects first century life in which workers received their pay daily. It also reminds disciples that we only live one day at a time, and each day we are dependent on God to sustain us.

Now that Jesus has focused upon our physical good, He will turn in the last two petitions to our spiritual good ....

2) Our Spiritual Good: Forgiveness of Past Sin

Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

Jesus assumes that we will need to ask for God's forgiveness daily (recall vs. 11). And He also assumes that we need a daily reminder that a truly repentant heart is one that is forgiving of others as well.

John Stott is again helpful here:

Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offense against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offenses of others, it proves that we have minimized our own. (The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, p.149-150)

Jesus teaches that we cannot be sincere in asking forgiveness for ourselves, if we have an unforgiving heart toward another.

3) Our Spiritual Good: Deliverance from Future Temptation

Matthew 6:13a "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

Jesus also assumes that we will face a daily battle with sin, and that we are utterly dependent upon God's enabling grace to win that battle. Thus He teaches us that daily prayer for God's help is absolutely essential. The Apostle Paul learned this lesson well, and he also taught it to others, as the letter to the Ephesians demonstrates:

Ephesians 6:11-18a “11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit ….”

So, in this second half of the prayer we are taught to always recognize that we are utterly dependent upon God for all that we really need, and that He alone is the supplier of these needs, whether they are physical or spiritual needs. Sometimes we too easily forget this and think we may rely on our own strength for our daily needs, or perhaps at least for our daily physical needs, but Jesus wants us to remember every day that we must rely upon God to meet all our needs.

Note: Some see in these last three petitions a Trinitarian emphasis: the Father provides our daily bread, the Son provides forgiveness through the atonement, and the Holy Spirit gives us the power to overcome future sin.

3. It is a Prayer for Our Good for God's Glory

Matthew 6:13b "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

When Jesus uses the word for (Greek hóti), He is giving the reason for the preceding petitions.

For example, He is saying that we pray for our own physical and spiritual well-being not because these things are an end in themselves, but because in this way God's kingdom, power, and glory are most fully manifested in and through us.

As John Piper frequently says it, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

So, God's glory and our good are not two separate ends. They are so inextricably linked in God's plan that we cannot genuinely seek one without seeking the other. Thus, to seek our own ultimate good is to seek God's glory first in our lives, and to seek God's glory first is to seek our own good.

Conclusion: Application Questions: What about me? Do I typically begin my praying with reflection upon who God is as my heavenly Father? Do I make it my priority to put His kingdom and glory first in my prayers? Can I ever expect His kingdom and glory to be first in my everyday living if it isn't first in my praying? On the other hand, do I regularly spend most of my time in prayer asking for what I need – or think that I need – rather than in seeking God's glory?

The American Revolution: Was it Biblical?

Was the American Revolution Biblical? This question was posed to me recently, and in this post I would like to share some thoughts on the matter. I acknowledge up front that this question is one that has been strongly debated by Christians at times. In fact, there was not consistent agreement among Christians at the time of the Revolution either.

I think that the following assessment by Derek H. Davis, Director of the Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, in an article entitled How Christian Was the American Revolution?, shows the diversity of opinion among Christians at the time:

How Christian was the American Revolution? The answer perhaps depends upon how we understand the question. If we seek to know whether there was an adequate biblical justification for the Revolution, we probably cannot give a very satisfactory answer because while there were many Christian patriots who supported the Independence movement, there were many Christian Tories who supported submission to Great Britain and many Christian pacifists who thought that war under any circumstances was wrong. In other words, Christians disagreed on whether the Revolution was a part of God’s will. If, however, we seek to know whether the Revolutionary movement was sustained by Christian ideals, we can probably come closer to saying that the Revolution was indeed Christian, since so much of the Revolution's ideological underpinnings were theological arguments advanced by Christians.

When we come to Scripture for an answer as to whether or not the American Revolution was, in fact, Biblical, the primary passage has to be found in Romans:

NKJ Romans 13:1-7 “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists [ὁ, followed by the present participle of ἀντιτάσσω] the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

Here the key verses are verses 1-2, which appear to be as universal a statement for Christians as one could imagine. These verses clearly assert that “every soul” must be subject to the governing authorities, that there is “no authority” that has not come from God, and that all the “authorities that exist are appointed by God” (vs. 1). They further clearly assert that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God” (vs. 2). (For a restatement of the general principle see also Titus 3:1.) Indeed, this passage appears to be so clear that it has led John MacArthur to declare:

Over the past several centuries, people have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That's why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are divinely endowed rights.

Therefore those believers say such rights are part of a Christian worldview, worth attaining and defending at all cost including military insurrection at times. But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers. (Why Government Can't Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, p. 6)

But, of course, the many Christians who supported the Revolution at the time were not oblivious to the importance of this passage. In fact, it was at the heart of the debate about whether or not they should offer their support to the cause. Historian Derek H. Davis, in the aforementioned article, is again helpful here:

Christians seeking a scriptural perspective on a possible war with England were especially challenged by Romans 13:1: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." This verse was an obstacle to many Christian colonists. How could a Christian support independence in the face of such a clear statement that God ordains all governmental authority and obedient Christian citizenship requires submission to such authority? Anglican minister Jonathan Boucher of Maryland, for example, concluded in a 1775 sermon that "obedience to government is every man's duty . . . because . . . it is enjoined by the positive commands of God." Loyalists (those who opposed the Revolution) numbered about one-third of the American population and many of them cited Romans 13:1 as the basis of their loyalty to the mother country.

But Romans 13:1 could be interpreted differently. Many patriot preachers taught that the passage did not require unlimited passive obedience unto despotic, evil governments; it rather approved of human government in a broad, generic way in which submission would be the normal practice. Prominent Congregational minister Jonathan Mayhew, for example, held this view, stating that civil magistrates should be obeyed only so long as “they do not grossly abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of those that are governed.” This interpretation of Romans 13:1 became widespread among other colonial preachers, thus removing the verse as an obstacle to revolution.

Patriot ministers regularly preached on the theme of liberty as well. If God's people had "been called to liberty," as Galatians 5:13 promised, meaning liberty in Christ, then it did not seem too much a stretch to believe that this also meant freedom from political tyranny. This theme was further supported by the social contract and natural right theories of such philosophical divines as John Milton, Algernon Sydney, and especially John Locke. Modern researchers have affirmed that outside of the Bible, the writings of John Locke were the most frequently cited source for justifying the Revolution.

The problem with the interpretation of Romans 13:1 offered by Jonathan Mayhew – i.e. that civil magistrates should be obeyed so long as “they do not grossly abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of those that are governed” – is that Paul seems to envision no such qualification. And one would certainly have expected him to offer such a qualification if he agreed with it, especially since at the time he was writing Nero was most likely the Emperor. But whoever the Emperor was at the time, corruption was fairly common in Roman government in the latter half of the first century. Perhaps it would be good, then, to take a look at a couple of other arguments for a different understanding of Romans 13:

1) the argument that we must not overthrow government as an institution, and

2) the argument that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we obey an interpositional authority.

First, some Christians make the argument that we must not overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy. David Barton (“the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage") argues in an online article entitled The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion? that:

Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.

The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society. Therefore, a crucial determination in the colonists’ Biblical exegesis was whether opposition to authority was simply to resist the general institution of government (an institution ordained by God Himself), or whether it was instead to resist tyrannical leaders who had themselves rebelled against God. (The Scriptural model for this position was repeatedly validated when God Himself raised up leaders such as Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah to throw off tyrannical governments – leaders subsequently praised in Hebrews 11:32 for those acts of faith.)

[And later in the article he says] The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers. After all, Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.

Notice that the first argument here must assume that Paul had in mind only that we should not resist the institution of government in general and thus opt for anarchy when he said, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God …” (Rom. 13:1-2a). But the problem is that Paul is not speaking in this way. He is quite plainly asserting that any particular authority over us has been placed there by God when he says in explanation of the command to “be subject to the governing authorities” that “there is no authority except from God.” In my opinion, to argue that Paul only has in mind resistance to the establishment of any kind of government at all is to read into the text.

As for Barton's allusion to Old Testament examples of rebellion against a governing authority, I would respond that, in my view, these cases were all instances of God's special revelation that such should be done or of His divine intervention on behalf of a people whose position was that of a national entity under His rule. Can we really apply such cases in the history of national Israel to the Church? I think not. I think this would fail to properly take into account the differences between the nature of the Old Covenant people of God as a nation among nations and the New Covenant people of God as a family of believers from among all nations. Under the Old Covenant the very nature of the case often required rebellion against foreign oppressors or the overthrow of wicked kings, and then only with Divine sanction and guidance. But the New Covenant Church is not such an entity. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36 NKJ).

As for part two of Barton's argument, I suppose we would have to debate whether or not the Revolution was in reality a war of self defense or whether or not it was the resistance of an authority that had the right to quell opposition by means of force. As I consider this notion in the context of Romans 13, I can't help but wonder why the early Church did not avail herself of such an argument, especially when one considers just how unjust the Roman government could often be in its use of force.

Second, some Christians make the argument that we may overthrow the government if in doing so we obey an interpositional authority. That is, if we are subject to a lesser authority which rebels against a higher authority, then we may obey that lesser authority by joining in the rebellion. And the magistrates in early America, it is argued, constituted just such lesser authorities.

But notice that this argument assumes that it would be right for a lesser authority to seek to overthrow a higher authority in the first place. But what if it isn't right? Does Paul assume in Romans 13 that it would be right? Or does his position indicate that it would be wrong? It appears to me that it would indeed be wrong, because it would in any case entail resistance of a God ordained authority, and such resistance would be considered sin by Paul. In fact, couldn't I argue on the basis of Romans 13 that, when a lesser authority requires me to disobey and resist a higher authority, I must disobey that lesser authority because it is requiring me to sin against God?

Now, I obviously do agree that Paul expects the governing authorities to wield their authority justly, but he does not say that resistance is acceptable if they fail to do so. Not that he wouldn't agree that civil disobedience is permissible at times, for I have no doubt that he would agree with Peter and John and the rest of the Apostles when they practiced civil disobedience. For example:

NKJ Acts 4:18-20 “And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.'”

NKJ Acts 5:27-29 “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, 'Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!' 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'” (For Peter's general point of view, which of course agrees with Paul, see 1 Peter 2:13-14.)

Of course we could add other Scriptural examples of civil disobedience, such as the Hebrew midwives in ancient Egypt (Exod. 1:15-21) or Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in ancient Babylon (otherwise known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, Dan. 3:8-18), or Daniel in Persia (Dan. 6:1-23). But the point is that in none of these cases is overthrow of the government involved. They disobeyed only at those points where the governing authority expressly required them to disobey God.

Now, I suppose one could give Old Testament examples where overthrow of the government did take place, such as when Jeroboam the son of Nebat rebelled against Rehoboam, but aside from the problems with directly applying such Old Covenant situations to the New Covenant Church, I would simply observe that in this case (and others like it) there was special revelation from God calling for the rebellion (1 Kings 11:29-39). Kirby Anderson, President of Probe Ministries, cites such examples in an online article entitled Civil Disobedience, and he makes the following helpful observations:

Notice that in each of these examples there are at least two common elements. First, there was a direct, specific conflict between God's law and man's law. Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill male Hebrew babies. Nebuchadnezzar commanded his subjects to bow before the golden image. King Darius ruled that no one could pray. And, in the New Testament, the High Priest and the Council forbade the apostles from proclaiming the gospel.

Second, in choosing to obey God's higher law, believers paid the normal consequence for disobedience. Although most of those previously cited escaped the consequence through supernatural intervention, we know from biblical and secular history that others paid for their disobedience with their lives.

Actually, we may be called upon to carry out such civil disobedience in the near future. As the recently drafted Manhattan Declaration asserts in its final paragraph:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s. (This document was drafted October 20, 2009 and released November 20, 2009.)

Although I personally could not sign the Manhattan Declaration because of the way it leads to confusion concerning the nature of the Gospel (as I indicated here), I certainly agree with these concluding sentiments. However, these sentiments do not call for a revolution, but only for disobedience of the government at those points where the government would call upon us to disobey God. And this is a crucial distinction.

Readers of this article may also be interested in my post entitled A Memorial Day Reflection on Christian Patriotism. See also Jeff Johnson's article entitled Giving Uncle Sam His Due.

Blaise Pascal: An Apologist for Our Times

Written by Rick Wade, a Research Associate of Probe Ministries (See below.)

Introduction

One of the tasks of Christian apologetics is to serve as a tool for evangelism. It is very easy, however, to stay in the realm of ideas and never confront unbelievers with the necessity of putting their faith in Christ.

One apologist who was not guilty of this was Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth-century mathematician, scientist, inventor and Christian apologist. Christ and the need for redemption through Him were central to Pascal's apologetics.

There was another feature of Pascal's thought that was, and remains, rare in apologetics: his understanding of the human condition as both created and fallen, and his use of that understanding as a point of contact with unbelievers.

Peter Kreeft, a modern day Christian philosopher and apologist, says that Pascal is a man for our day. "Pascal," he says, "is three centuries ahead of his time. He addresses his apologetic to modern pagans, sophisticated skeptics, comfortable members of the new secular intelligentsia. He is the first to realize the new dechristianized, desacramentalized world and to address it. He belongs to us. . . . Pascal is our prophet. No one after this seventeenth-century man has so accurately described our twentieth-century mind."{1}

Pascal was born June 19, 1623 in Clermont, France, and moved to Paris in 1631. His mother died when he was three, and he was raised by his father, a respected mathematician, who personally directed his education.

Young Blaise took after his father in mathematics. In 1640, at age 16, he published an essay on the sections of a cone which was much praised.{2} Between 1642 and 1644 Pascal developed a calculating machine for his father to use in his tax computations. Later, he "invented the syringe, refined Torricelli's barometer, and created the hydraulic press, an instrument based upon the principles which came to be known as Pascal's law" of pressure.{3} He did important work on the problem of the vacuum, and he is also known for his work on the calculus of probabilities.

Although a Catholic in belief and practice, after the death of his father and the entrance of his younger sister into a convent, Pascal entered a very worldly phase of his life. Things changed, however, on the night of November 23, 1654, when he underwent a remarkable conversion experience which changed the course of his life. He joined a community of scholars in Port-Royal, France, who were known as Jansenists. Although he participated in the prayers and work of the group, he didn't become a full-fledged member himself. However, he assisted them in a serious controversy with the Jesuits, and some of his writings on their behalf are considered "a monument in the evolution of French prose" by historians of the language.{4}

In 1657 and 1658 Pascal wrote notes on apologetics which he intended to organize into a book. These notes were published after his death as the Pensees, which means "thoughts" in French. It is this collection of writings which has established Pascal in Christian apologetics. This book is still available today in several different versions.{5}

Pascal was a rather sickly young man, and in the latter part of his short life he suffered from severe pain. On August 19, 1662, at the age of 39, Pascal died. His last words were "May God never abandon me!"{6}

The Human Condition

To properly understand Pascal's apologetics, it's important to recognize his motive. Pascal wasn't interested in defending Christianity as a system of belief; his interest was evangelistic. He wanted to persuade people to believe in Jesus. When apologetics has evangelism as its primary goal, it has to take into account the condition of the people being addressed. For Pascal the human condition was the starting point and point of contact for apologetics.

In his analysis of man, Pascal focuses on two very contradictory sides of fallen human nature. Man is both noble and wretched. Noble, because he is created in God's image; wretched, because he is fallen and alienated from God. In one of his more passionate notes, Pascal says this:

What kind of freak is man! What a novelty he is, how absurd he is, how chaotic and what a mass of contradictions, and yet what a prodigy! He is judge of all things, yet a feeble worm. He is repository of truth, and yet sinks into such doubt and error. He is the glory and the scum of the universe!{7}

Furthermore, Pascal says, we know that we are wretched. But it is this very knowledge that shows our greatness.

Pascal says it's important to have a right understanding of ourselves. He says "it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can free him from it." Thus, our message must be that "there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him."{8} This prepares the unbeliever to hear about the Redeemer who reconciles the sinner with the Creator.

Pascal says that people know deep down that there is a problem, but we resist slowing down long enough to think about it. He says:

Man finds nothing so intolerable as to be in a state of complete rest, without passions, without occupation, without diversion, without effort. Then he faces his nullity, loneliness, inadequacy, dependence, helplessness, emptiness. And at once there wells up from the depths of his soul boredom, gloom, depression, chagrin, resentment, despair.{9}

Pascal says there are two ways people avoid thinking about such matters: diversion and indifference. Regarding diversion, he says we fill up our time with relatively useless activities simply to avoid facing the truth of our wretchedness. "The natural misfortune of our mortality and weakness is so miserable," he says, "that nothing can console us when we really think about it. . . . The only good thing for man, therefore, is to be diverted so that he will stop thinking about his circumstances." Business, gambling, and entertainment are examples of things which keep us busy in this way.{10}

The other response to our condition is indifference. The most important question we can ask is What happens after death? Life is but a few short years, and death is forever. Our state after death should be of paramount importance, shouldn't it? But the attitude people take is this:

Just as I do not know where I came from, so I do not know where I am going. All I know is that when I leave this world I shall fall forever into oblivion, or into the hands of an angry God, without knowing which of the two will be my lot for eternity. Such is my state of mind, full of weakness and uncertainty. The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that I must pass my days without a thought of trying to find out what is going to happen to me.{11}

 Pascal is appalled that people think this way, and he wants to shake people out of their stupor and make them think about eternity. Thus, the condition of man is his starting point for moving people toward a genuine knowledge of God.

Knowledge of the Heart

Pascal lived in the age of the rise of rationalism. Revelation had fallen on hard times; man's reason was now the final source for truth. In the realm of religious belief many people exalted reason and adopted a deistic view of God. Some, however, became skeptics. They doubted the competence of both revelation and reason.

Although Pascal couldn't side with the skeptics, neither would he go the way of the rationalists. Instead of arguing that revelation was a better source of truth than reason, he focused on the limitations of reason itself. (I should stop here to note that by reason Pascal meant the reasoning process. He did not deny the true powers of reason; he was, after all, a scientist and mathematician.) Although the advances in science increased man's knowledge, it also made people aware of how little they knew. Thus, through our reason we realize that reason itself has limits. "Reason's last step," Pascal said, "is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."{12} Our knowledge is somewhere between certainty and complete ignorance, Pascal believed.{13} The bottom line is that we need to know when to affirm something as true, when to doubt, and when to submit to authority.{14}

Besides the problem of our limited knowledge, Pascal also noted how our reason is easily distracted by our senses and hindered by our passions.{15} "The two so-called principles of truth *reason and the senses* are not only not genuine but are engaged in mutual deception. Through false appearances the senses deceive reason. And just as they trick the soul, they are in turn tricked by it. It takes its revenge. The senses are influenced by the passions which produce false impressions."{16} Things sometimes appear to our senses other than they really are, such as the way a stick appears bent when put in water. Our emotions or passions also influence how we think about things. And our imagination, which Pascal says is our dominant faculty{17}, often has precedence over our reason. A bridge suspended high over a ravine might be wide enough and sturdy enough, but our imagination sees us surely falling off.

So, our finiteness, our senses, our passions, and our imagination can adversely influence our powers of reason. But Pascal believed that people really do know some things to be true even if they cannot account for it rationally. Such knowledge comes through another channel, namely, the heart.

This brings us to what is perhaps the best known quotation of Pascal: "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."{18} In other words, there are times that we know something is true but we did not come to that knowledge through logical reasoning, neither can we give a logical argument to support that belief.

For Pascal, the heart is "the `intuitive' mind" rather than "the `geometrical' (calculating, reasoning) mind."{19} For example, we know when we aren't dreaming. But we can't prove it rationally. However, this only proves that our reason has weaknesses; it does not prove that our knowledge is completely uncertain. Furthermore, our knowledge of such first principles as space, time, motion, and number is certain even though known by the heart and not arrived at by reason. In fact, reason bases its arguments on such knowledge.{20} Knowledge of the heart and knowledge of reason might be arrived at in different ways, but they are both valid. And neither can demand that knowledge coming through the other should submit to its own dictates.

The Knowledge of God

If reason is limited in its understanding of the natural order, knowledge of God can be especially troublesome. "If natural things are beyond [reason]," Pascal said, "what are we to say about supernatural things?"{21}

There are several factors which hinder our knowledge of God. As noted before, we are limited by our finitude. How can the finite understand the infinite?{22} Another problem is that we cannot see clearly because we are in the darkness of sin. Our will is turned away from God, and our reasoning abilities are also adversely affected.

There is another significant limitation on our knowledge of God. Referring to Isaiah 8:17 and 45:15{23}, Pascal says that as a result of our sin God deliberately hides Himself ("hides" in the sense that He doesn't speak}. One reason He does this is to test our will. Pascal says, "God wishes to move the will rather than the mind. Perfect clarity would help the mind and harm the will." God wants to "humble [our] pride."{24}

But God doesn't remain completely hidden; He is both hidden and revealed. "If there were no obscurity," Pascal says, "man would not feel his corruption: if there were no light man could not hope for a cure."{25}

God not only hides Himself to test our will; He also does it so that we can only come to Him through Christ, not by working through some logical proofs. "God is a hidden God," says Pascal, " and . . . since nature was corrupted [God] has left men to their blindness, from which they can escape only through Jesus Christ, without whom all communication with God is broken off. Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whosoever the Son will reveal him."{26} Pascal's apologetic is decidedly Christocentric. True knowledge of God isn't mere intellectual assent to the reality of a divine being. It must include a knowledge of Christ through whom God revealed Himself. He says:

All who have claimed to know God and to prove his existence without Jesus Christ have done so ineffectively. . . . Apart from him, and without Scripture, without original sin, without the necessary Mediator who was promised and who came, it is impossible to prove absolutely that God exists, or to teach sound doctrine and sound morality. But through and in Jesus Christ we can prove God's existence, and teach both doctrine and morality.{27}

If we do not know Christ, we cannot understand God as the judge and the redeemer of sinners. It is a limited knowledge that doesn't do any good. As Pascal says, "That is why I am not trying to prove naturally the existence of God, or indeed the Trinity, or the immortality of the soul or anything of that kind. This is not just because I do not feel competent to find natural arguments that will convince obdurate atheists, but because such knowledge, without Christ, is useless and empty." A person with this knowledge has not "made much progress toward his salvation."{28} What Pascal wants to avoid is proclaiming a deistic God who stands remote and expects from us only that we live good, moral lives. Deism needs no redeemer.

But even in Christ, God has not revealed Himself so overwhelmingly that people cannot refuse to believe. In the last days God will be revealed in a way that everyone will have to acknowledge Him. In Christ, however, God was still hidden enough that people who didn't want what was good would not have it forced upon them. Thus, "there is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition."{29}

There is still one more issue which is central to Pascal's thinking about the knowledge of God. He says that no one can come to know God apart from faith. This is a theme of central importance for Pascal; it clearly sets him apart from other apologists of his day. Faith is the knowledge of the heart that only God gives. "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason," says Pascal. "That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason."{30} "By faith we know he exists," he says.{31} "Faith is different from proof. One is human and the other a gift of God. . . . This is the faith that God himself puts into our hearts. . . ."{32} Pascal continues, "We shall never believe with an effective belief and faith unless God inclines our hearts. Then we shall believe as soon as he inclines them."{33}

To emphasize the centrality of heart knowledge in Pascal's thinking, I deliberately left off the end of one of the sentences above. Describing the faith God gives, Pascal said, "This is the faith that God himself puts into our hearts, often using proof as the instrument."{34}

This is rather confusing. Pascal says non-believers are in darkness, so proofs will only find obscurity.{35} He notes that "no writer within the canon [of Scripture] has ever used nature to prove the existence of God. They all try to help people believe in him."{36} He also expresses astonishment at Christians who begin their defense by making a case for the existence of God.

Their enterprise would cause me no surprise if they were addressing the arguments to the faithful, for those with living faith in their hearts can certainly see at once that everything which exists is entirely the work of the God they worship. But for those in whom this light has gone out and in who we are trying to rekindle it, people deprived of faith and grace, . . . to tell them, I say, that they have only to look at the least thing around them and they will see in it God plainly revealed; to give them no other proof of this great and weighty matter than the course of the moon and the planets; to claim to have completed the proof with such an argument; this is giving them cause to think that the proofs of our religion are indeed feeble. . . . This is not how Scripture speaks, with its better knowledge of the things of God.{37}

But now Pascal says that God often uses proofs as the instrument of faith. He also says in one place, "The way of God, who disposes all things with gentleness, is to instil [sic] religion into our minds with reasoned arguments and into our hearts with grace. . . ."{38}

The explanation for this tension can perhaps be seen in the types of proofs Pascal uses. Pascal won't argue from nature. Rather he'll point to evidences such as the marks of divinity within man, and those which affirm Christ's claims, such as prophecies and miracles, the most important being prophecies.{39} He also speaks of Christian doctrine "which gives a reason for everything," the establishment of Christianity despite its being so contrary to nature, and the testimony of the apostles who could have been neither deceivers nor deceived.{40} So Pascal does believe there are positive evidences for belief. Although he does not intend to give reasons for everything, neither does he expect people to agree without having a reason.{41}

Nonetheless, even evidences such as these do not produce saving faith. He says, "The prophecies of Scripture, even the miracles and proofs of our faith, are not the kind of evidence that are absolutely convincing. . . . There is . . . enough evidence to condemn and yet not enough to convince. . . ." People who believe do so by grace; those who reject the faith do so because of their lusts. Reason isn't the key.{42}

Pascal says that, while our faith has the strongest of evidences in favor of it, "it is not for these reasons that people adhere to it. . . . What makes them believe," he says, " is the cross." At which point he quotes 1 Corinthians 1:17: "Lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."{43}

The Wager

The question that demands to be answered, of course, is this: If our reason is inadequate to find God, even through valid evidences, how does one find God? Says Pascal:

Let us then examine the point and say: "Either God exists, or he does not." But which of the alternatives shall we choose? Reason cannot decide anything. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you bet? Reason cannot determine how you will choose, nor can reason defend your position of choice.{44}

 At this point Pascal challenges us to accept his wager. Simply put, the wager says we should bet on Christianity because the rewards are infinite if it's true, while the losses will be insignificant if it's false.{45} If it's true and you have rejected it, you've lost everything. However, if it's false but you have believed it, at least you've led a good life and you haven't lost anything. Of course, the best outcome is if one believes Christianity to be true and it turns out that it is!

But the unbeliever might say it's better not to choose at all. Not so, says Pascal. You're going to live one way or the other, believing in God or not believing in God; you can't remain in suspended animation. You must choose.

In response the unbeliever might say that everything in him works against belief. "I am being forced to gamble and I am not free," he says, "for they will not let me go. I have been made in such a way that I cannot help disbelieving. So what do you expect me to do?"{46} After all, Pascal has said that faith comes from God, not from us.

Pascal says our inability to believe is a problem of the emotions or passions. Don't try to convince yourself by examining more proofs and evidences, he says, "but by controlling your emotions." You want to believe but don't know how. So follow the examples of those who "were once in bondage but who now are prepared to risk their whole life. . . . Follow the way by which they began. They simply behaved as though they believed" by participating in various Christian rituals. And what can be the harm? "You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, full of good works, a true and genuine friend. . . . I assure you that you will gain in this life, and that with every step you take along this way, you will realize you have bet on something sure and infinite which has cost you nothing."{47}

Remember that Pascal sees faith as a gift from God, and he believes that God will show Himself to whomever sincerely seeks Him.{48} By taking him up on the wager and putting yourself in a place where you are open to God, God will give you faith. He will give you sufficient light to know what is really true.

Scholars have argued over the validity of Pascal's wager for centuries. In this writer's opinion, it has significant weaknesses. What about all the other religions, one of which could (in the opinion of the unbeliever) be true?

However, the idea is an intriguing one. Pascal's assertion that one must choose seems reasonable. Even if such a wager cannot have the kind of mathematical force Pascal seemed to think, it could work to startle the unbeliever into thinking more seriously about the issue. The important thing here is to challenge people to choose, and to choose the right course.

Summary

Pascal began his apologetics with an analysis of the human condition drawn from the experience of the new, modern man. He showed what a terrible position man is in, and he argued that man is not capable of finding all the answers through reason. He insisted that the deistic approach to God was inadequate, and proclaimed Christ whose claims found support in valid evidences such as prophecies and miracles. He then called people to press through the emotional bonds which kept them separate from God and put themselves in a place where they could find God, or rather be found by Him.

Is Blaise Pascal a man for our times? Whether or not you agree with the validity of Pascal's wager or some other aspect of his apologetics, I think we can gain some valuable insights from his ideas. His description of man as caught between his own nobility and baseness while trying to avoid looking closely at his condition certainly rings true of twentieth-century man. His insistence on keeping the concrete truth of Christ at the center keeps his apologetics tied to the central theme of Christianity, namely, that our identity is found in Jesus, where there is room for neither pride nor despair, and that in Jesus we can come to a true knowledge of God. For apart from the knowledge of Christ, all the speculation in the world about God will do little good.

Notes

{1} Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees Edited, Outlined and Explained (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 13, 189.

{2} Hugh M. Davidson, Blaise Pascal (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983), 4.

{3} The New Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia, 15th ed., s.v. "Pascal, Blaise."

{4} Davidson, 18.

{5} James Houston's translation, Mind On First: A Faith for the Skeptical and Indifferent (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997), will be quoted extensively in these notes. This version was edited to retain only the individual pensees which are pertinent for apologetics. Mind On Fire also includes edited versions of some of Pascal's Provincial Letters, the ones he wrote against the Jesuits. The reader might also want to refer to Peter Kreeft's version (cf. note 1 above) which includes Kreeft's comments on individual pensees.

{6} Davidson, 22.

{7} Houston, 91.

{8} Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. W.F. Trotter, 97.

{9} Kreeft, 187.

{10} Houston, 96.

{11} Ibid., 122.

{12} Kreeft, 238.

{13} Ibid., 124.

{14} Ibid., 236.

{15} Houston, 58.

{16} Ibid., 58.

{17} Ibid., 53.

{18} Trotter, 50.

{19} Kreeft, 228.

{20} Ibid., 229.

{21} Ibid., 238.

{22} Ibid., 120-26, 293.

{23} Trotter, 178; see also 130.

{24} Kreeft, 247.

{25} Ibid., 249.

{26} Ibid., 251.

{27} Houston, 147.

{28} Ibid., 149.

{29} Kreeft, 69.

{30} Ibid., 232.

{31} Houston, 130.

{32} Kreeft, 240.

{33} Houston, 223.

{34} Kreeft, 240.

{35} Houston, 151.

{36} Ibid., 152.

{37} Kreeft, 250-51.

{38} Ibid., 240.

{39} Houston, 205; Trotter, 52.

{40} Trotter, 52; Kreeft, 266.

{41} Houston, 116-17.

{42} Ibid., 221-22.

{43} Ibid., 223.

{44} Ibid., 130-31.

{45} Kreeft, 292.

{46} Houston, 133.

{47} Ibid., 133.

{48} Kreeft, 251, 255.

©1998 Probe Ministries.

__________

About the Author

Rick Wade graduated from Moody Bible Institute with a B.A. in communications (radio broadcasting) in 1986. He graduated cum laude in 1990 from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with an M.A. in Christian thought (theology/philosophy of religion) where his studies culminated in a thesis on the apologetics of Carl F.H. Henry. He is currently nearing completion of a Master of Humanities degree at the University of Dallas. Rick's interests focus on apologetics and Christianity and culture with a special interest in issues of special concern in these 'postmodern" days (such as religious pluralism and the matter of truth). Before joining Probe Ministries in February 1997, Rick worked in the ship repair industry in Norfolk, VA. Rick and his family make their home in Garland, Texas.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at http://www.probe.org/.

Copyright/Reproduction Limitations

This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2007 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.

James White Comments on Brit Hume's "Cultural Heresy"

James White plays Brit Hume's statements about Tiger Woods' need for forgiveness and redemption that cannot be found in his Buddhist religion but only in Christianity. He also plays a number of followup comments by Hume and others discussing the fallout from Hume's assertions. White intersperses his own critique along the way, displaying his usual Biblical perspective on the matter.

If you are one of those readers who has not yet discovered the insightful and edifying ministry of James White, I highly recommend visiting his Alpha and Omega Ministries website and checking out his books. You can also check out numerous other videos by White at his YouTube channel.

Sermon & Illustration Database Has Been Updated

I first informed you all of this resource in a post entitled Online Sources for Sermon Illustrations back in 2006. But I thought it well to let you know that the Sermon and Illustration Database (SID) has been significantly updated in version 2.0.1. You may download the program here. And you may choose to download the various Illustration sets or sermon sets separately as well. David Holwick also still maintains his collection of Questionable Illustrations here. I cannot vouch for the theological reliability of all of the resources, but there is much that may be useful. I hope you will find this to be a helpful resource. May God bless you with a happy new year!

Humorous Reformed Baptist Take on the Twelve Days of Christmas

I saw this over at the RBS Tabletalk blog and thought I would share it with this blog's readers as well. It is called "The twelve Doctrines of Christmas."

Final Reminder: The Journey Book Giveaway Drawing is Tomorrow!

This is the final reminder to the blog's readers that, as I announced on September 1, I am going to offer a free copy of two of the Journey books for Christmas this year to one of the blog's email subscribers. They will include the recent book, A Journey in Heresy, and the first book in the Journey series, A Journey in Grace. If you already have the first book, then I will allow the substitution of another from the series. Tomorrow, December 11, at 11:00 PM Central Standard Time, I will draw from the addresses included in the email subscriber list from FeedBurner. So, if you want to have a chance to receive these books, then make sure you sign up as an email subscriber to the blog using the Subscribe in a reader link on the right panel of this page. And make sure you click the "Get Reformed Baptist Blog delivered by email" option. When you receive a verification email, make sure you respond in order to verify your email address, because only verified email addresses will be eligible.

Current email subscribers are already in the running. I will send the two books to the first email subscriber drawn and that I can contact, so make sure that your email address is valid.

I suspect that once you have read a couple of the books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

And by the way, Dr. Belcher's latest book, A Journey in Dispensationalism, is in the works, and I will let the blog's readers know as soon as I hear that it is available.

Sermons by Dr. Belcher

I have been searching for online sermons by Dr. Belcher for my own edification and also to share with the blog's readers. I have come up with a list that I would like to share with you here. My goal is to collect as many links to his online sermons and teachings as I can all in one place. If you know of other sermons by Dr. Belcher online, I would ask you to please post a link in the comments here.

If you would like to hear some of his sermons, you can start by checking the Sermons page of Covenant Baptist Church in West Columbia, South Carolina (where he currently serves as pastor).

You may also want to check out Dr. Belcher's description of the way the Doctrines of Grace have impacted his own life and ministry in a series entitled "My Journey in Grace." This four part series is included on the Sermons page at the website of Southside Baptist Church in Denver, Colorado (just scroll down the page).

You can find a number of his sermons at SermonAudio.com here. These messages include "Defining and Defending Sovereign Grace," a "Biography of Adonirum Judson" (in narration and song), a two part series on "Sovereign Grace in the Book of Romans," a two part series on "Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Revival," and a ten part "Study of Job."

You can find a four part series on Jude at the website of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Rio Rico, Arizona.

Again, if you know of other sermons by Dr. Belcher online, I would ask you to please post a link in the comments here. As you may have guessed, given previous posts on this blog and my joy at his joining the blog, my interest is also quite personal, since Dr. Belcher has been perhaps the one person God has most used to help shape my own theology and ministry.

Continuing Debate Over Baptist Usage of the Word "Reformed"

Back on June 26 R. Scott Clark wrote A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John criticizing John Piper for inviting Doug Wilson to the September Desiring God Conference. Although I agreed with Scott in his confrontation of John on this point, I did not agree with everything he said in that post. I especially did not agree with his criticism of Reformed Baptists for their use of the term Reformed as a a description of themselves. Here are the specific comments with which I took exception:

Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.”

You can read my response to Clark's argument in the July 2 post entitled Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist. But I also wanted to point out some other reading that may be profitable, at least if you don't mind wading through a lot of interaction and debate in the "comments" sections of a couple of blogs.

To begin with, R. Scott Clark has written a couple of other Heidelblog articles in which he takes exception to Reformed Baptists using the term Reformed to describe themselves. The first was posted back on July 3 and is entitled A Baptist Reads RCC and Benefits From It. And the second was posted on November 27 and is entitled Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: A Reply to James White. The reason I suggest both articles, by the way, is not because either of them is particularly good, but because in the "comments" section of each one there are some very good arguments offered by Reformed Baptists in their exchange with Scott and other Presbyterians. Most notable among the Reformed Baptist contributors to this discussion is Robert Gonzales, who ably defends our point of view. In addition, Gonzales has posted his own article updating the status of the debate over at the RBS Tabletalk blog. That article was posted on November 28 and is entitled May Baptist Churches Use the Adjective "Reformed"? The Ongoing Debate. It is well worth reading if you have any interest at all in the discussion/debate. But I would still recommend wading through all of those comments over at the Heidelblog!

Concerns About the Manhattan Declaration

I have been hearing about the Manhattan Declaration since I first saw the coverage about it on Fox News on November 20. Here is the video of that coverage:



The main concern of this news story was whether or not the Manhattan Declaration calls for civil disobedience, and it would seem to me that it certainly does call for civil disobedience if such should be required. But my own concerns about the declaration lie in another area. To be sure, there is much in the seven page document with which I and most other Evangelical Christians may wholeheartedly agree, and this is no doubt why a number of men I respect have signed it. For example, the List of Religious & Organizational Leaders Signatories includes men such as Bryan Chapell, J. Ligon Duncan, Wayne Grudem, and R. Albert Mohler.

So with men like that willing to sign it, why do I have concerns about it? Well, my misgivings have to do with the way the term Christian is used in the document, which is subtitled "A Call of Christian Conscience." Here are some examples of what I mean:

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines. (p.1)

Notice the way in which the document speaks of medieval monasteries and Papal edicts as Christian along with Evangelicals like Wesley and Wilberforce.

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. (p.1)

Again notice the way in which the Orthodox, Catholics, and Evangelicals are jointly spoken of as Christians. And it speaks just as broadly of them all as believers. Such language continues on page 2 of the document:

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

Here is where I begin to get a bit more nervous. For not only are terms like Christian and fellow believers used indiscriminately of the Orthodox, Catholics, and Evangelicals mentioned previously, but the document also speaks of their joint duty to "proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness." But here is where things get very problematic, since these groups do not agree on the nature and meaning of the Gospel. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has anathematized all those who hold to an Evangelical understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone and justification by faith alone. Consider, for instance, these statements from the sixth session of the counter-Reformation Council of Trent in 1547:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
 
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
 
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

I hope the readers of this blog are beginning to see why I have concerns about this document. Although I agree strongly with the stances taken in the Manhattan Declaration on the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty, I cannot agree that those who believe the things formally taught by the Roman Catholic Church about the Gospel should be called Christians, at least not in the same sense that we use the term of those who believe the true Gospel as taught in Scripture. In fact, the above citations from the Council of Trent indicate that the Roman Catholic Church does not think we should all be called Christians either, for when it pronounces an anathema upon those of us who believe in justification by faith alone, it places us outside what they believe to be the true Church.
 
Now, I could go on to cite a number of other examples of this sort of ecumenical ambiguity in the language of the Manhattan Declaration, but I think the point has been made sufficiently. I will just say in closing that this is a "call of Christian conscience" that my conscience will not permit me to sign. For in doing so, I might publicly clarify my stand on some important moral issues, but I would do so while at the same time helping to foster a lack of clarity about the Gospel. This I could never do. As a true Protestant, I must instead say, "I protest."

Update 1 December 2009

You may also want to read Al Mohler's Why I Signed The Manhattan Declaration and Alistair Begg's article simply titled The Manhattan Declaration, in which he explains why he chose not to sign the declaration (from the standpoint of one who was present when the initial draft was presented). Obviously, I agree with Begg on this one.

Update 8 December 2009

Today R.C. Sproul weighed in on the issue with a blog post entitled The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn’t you sign it, R.C.? Here is an excerpt:

In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.

The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).

I am grateful for his input.

Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Proclamation of Thanksgiving

Given that tomorrow is the national celebration of Thanksgiving Day, I though it appropriate to share the October 3, 1863 Proclamation of Thanksgiving issued by President Abraham Lincoln. So here it is:

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,

Secretary of State

(For those interested in learning something about the Christian faith -- or lack thereof -- of Abraham Lincoln, Mark Noll wrote an intriguing article on the subject back in 2001. It is entitled The Puzzling Faith of Abraham Lincoln.)

I hope all of you have a very happy Thanksgiving holiday and that you do not forget to thank God for all His many blessings. As a much more important reminder to that end, I offer you a thanksgiving proclamation from Scripture:

A Psalm of Thanksgiving. Make a joyful shout to the LORD, all you lands! Serve the LORD with gladness; Come before His presence with singing.

Know that the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, And into His courts with praise. Be thankful to Him, and bless His name.

For the LORD is good; His mercy is everlasting, And His truth endures to all generations. (Psalm 100)

Tithing – A Good Place to Start

As a pastor I have often been asked over the years whether or not I think Christians should tithe, and my response is usually, “I think it is a good place to start.” I hope in this article to offer a Scriptural explanation for why I think this is so, especially since the practice appears to have fallen on hard times. There are probably a number of reasons for this, and I have little doubt that a lack of commitment to Christ and His Church, the idolatrous grip of materialism, and plain old selfishness have played some part. But I think the primary reason among thoughtful Evangelicals has to do with their understanding of Scripture. They simply see tithing as a practice that is no longer required of God's people and therefore just don't bother with it. For example, many Christians today rightly observe that we are no longer under the Mosaic law (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 3:10-23) and that, since tithing was a part of this Mosaic Law (Lev. 27:30-34; Num. 18:20-21; Deut. 14:22-29), we are therefore no longer required to continue the practice. In addition, it is observed that since tithing is not explicitly taught as a requirement in the New Testament, we have another reason that it is not a necessary practice for Christians.

I agree that there is no clear New Testament teaching commanding Christians to tithe, and this is why the elders at Immanuel Baptist Church (among whom I serve) do not demand that anyone tithe. But that doesn't mean that we would not encourage tithing as a good and godly practice or, as I stated earlier, as a good place to start with one's giving.

At any rate, there seems to be a growing sentiment among Evangelicals to adopt the oppositional stance that asks, “Why should we tithe?” And that is a good question. But today I would rather ask not, “Why should we tithe?” but rather 1) “Why shouldn't we tithe?” and 2) “Why shouldn't we do more than tithe?”

I. Why Shouldn't We Tithe?

In seeking to answer this question, I would like to draw your attention to several lines of argument in Scripture that show that tithing is a good idea.

First, tithing was the example of godly men before the giving of the Mosaic law. For example:

NKJ Genesis 14:18-20 “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him and said: 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.' And he gave him a tithe of all.”

NKJ Genesis 28:20-22 “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, 'If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, 21 so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. 22 And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.'”

Both of these texts are historical narrative passages which tell us about what Abram and Jacob did, but they do not give a command to others to tithe. These passages are descriptive, not prescriptive. However, what they describe is a good response to God that has been recorded for our benefit. And we know that God approved of their tithing, for He later incorporated tithing into the Mosaic law as we have already seen. In fact, I think it may be best to assume that Abraham and Jacob got the idea from God in the first place. But wherever they got the idea, the fact is that the practice was around and found to be good in God's sight before its incorporation into the Mosaic law, which should at least give us some pause about being so quick to dismiss it as simply a part of the Mosaic law that has passed away.

Second, tithing was affirmed by Jesus as a good thing. For example:

NKJ Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

Jesus clearly says that tithing is something they “ought to have done,” even if He sees the kind of tithing spoken of here as not being among the “weightier matters” of the law. But we must also remember that Jesus warned against the legalistic practice of tithing that does not come from the heart:

NKJ Luke 18:10-14 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

It is this kind of legalism that so many Christians fear today with respect to the practice of tithing, and they are right to seek to avoid such legalism. But I would hasten to add that just because something may be done in a legalistic way does not mean that it cannot be practiced in a proper way that recognizes that all that we have is by the grace of God. I would also warn against using the charge of legalism as an excuse to be stingy with what God has given us.

Now, as for Matthew 23:23, Jesus is dealing with those who were still under the law, and thus we cannot say that He intended here to enjoin the practice of tithing upon the New Covenant Church. But we can say that He approved of and encouraged tithing as a godly practice if done with the right motives.

Third, the means of supporting the Levites under the Old Covenant is affirmed by Paul as a good example for Christians to follow in support of their ministers under the New Covenant. For example:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.”

Paul does not explicitly mention the tithes that were given to the Lord for the sustaining of the Levitical priesthood, but the tithe was definitely a primary means of their support. And Paul clearly does see the concept of their sharing in what is given by the people as a model for the support of pastors today. Thus we certainly could say that tithing is a good idea, even if not something that can be demanded (for to demand it when Scripture does not would be the very kind of legalism Jesus despised).

But there is another passage to take note of in 1 Corinthians before moving on:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 16:2 “On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.”

To be sure, Paul is dealing here with a special offering that is being taken to support the church in Jerusalem, and he does not explicitly mention tithing or giving any fixed percentage of one's income, but he does clearly see the importance of giving in proportion to what one has. And tithing surely would be a good way of putting this principle into practice.

Fourth, tithing is a good way to honor Christ as our High Priest and King. For example:

NKJ Hebrews 7:1-8 “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated 'king of righteousness,' and then also king of Salem, meaning 'king of peace,' 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive [present tense] tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives [present tense].”

Some Christians see in this passage clear evidence of the practice of Christian tithing. They would argue that just as Abraham gave a “tenth” to Melchizedek – who is at the very least shown to be a type of Christ in this passage – so we too give “tithes” to Jesus, who is our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews, it is argued, assumes that the believers to whom he was writing did tithe, and he obviously thinks this is right.

I am not certain that this way of reading Hebrews 7:8 is correct, and thus I do not see it as an ample basis for saying that Christians should be required to tithe. However, I would observe that, if Abraham honored Melchizedek as a “priest of the Most High God” by giving a tithe to him, why shouldn't we see it as a good way to honor Christ as our Great High Priest who ever lives to make intercession for us? If Abraham honored Melchizedek as the King of Salem by giving a tithe to him, why shouldn't we see it as a good way to honor Christ as our King of kings and Lord of lords? Shouldn't we want to honor Christ at least as much as Abraham honored Melchizedek? I can think of few better ways to acknowledge that Jesus truly is our supreme Lord than to demonstrate that He is more important to us than our money and to do this by giving regularly. And I can hardly think of a more Biblical place to start such giving than with tithing.

I think John Piper communicates my own attitude toward tithing quite well in a sermon entitled Toward the Tithe and Beyond:

One objection to thinking of a tenth of our income as especially belonging to God is that ALL our money belongs to God. Psalm 24:1,

The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.

That is absolutely true. It's why my main way of talking about money year in and year out at Bethlehem is not to focus on tithing, but to focus on lifestyle. What you do with every cent says something about your view of God and what he means to you. And what your values are in this age. And what you think your few years on earth should be spent for. That's true. But God is wise and knows us deeply. He knows that there is something wrong with the husband who answers his wife's complaint that he doesn't give her any time by saying, "What do you mean, I don't give you my time? ALL my time is yours. I work all day long for you and the children." That has a very hollow ring to it if he doesn't give her any "especially time." Giving her some evenings together and some dates does not deny that all his time is for her, it proves it. This is why God declares one day in seven especially God's. They are all his, and making one special proves it.

And this is the way it is with our money and God. Giving God a tenth of our income does not deny that all our money is God's, it proves that we believe it. Tithing is like a constant offering of the first fruits of the whole thing. The tenth is yours, O, Lord, in a special way, because all of it is yours in an ordinary way.

I believe the tithe should be the first check we write after the income deposit is made in the bank. And when you write it, you put a seal over what's left: GOD'S. The tithe reminds us of that, and proves that we really believe it.

So, in summary, can I say that Christians are commanded in Scripture to tithe? No, and to try to demand tithing as though it is commanded of Christians in Scripture would be legalism, which I abhor. However, I do think that I can encourage tithing as a godly practice for Christians to follow in their giving, at least as a good place to start, which leads me to my next question.

II. Why Shouldn't We Do More Than Tithe?

When he came to prepare the way for Christ and to call God's people to repentance, John the Baptist taught, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11, NKJ). This is a kind of giving that goes beyond simply a tithe! It is giving away half of what you have!

But Jesus went even farther when He taught about what we should be willing to give up for Him. For example:

NKJ Luke 14:33 “So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.”

So, although the Christian is nowhere commanded to tithe, he is called upon to at least be willing to give up everything for Jesus! And a tenth is a small thing in comparison!

Perhaps the primary text dealing with giving in the Church, however, is found in 2 Corinthians 8-9. Let us consider a couple of key passages in these chapters:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 8:1-9 “Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 5 And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. 6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. 7 But as you abound in everything -- in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us -- see that you abound in this grace also. 8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.”

Although Paul clearly asserts that he doesn't command such sacrificial giving as that of the Macedonians, he nevertheless does see it as a good example for all to follow, and this is essentially the same approach I am taking here with regard to tithing. I am not saying we should command it, but I am saying that we should encourage it as a good place to start to learn to give sacrificially, so long as we can do so with a joyful heart, which is the matter to which we shall turn next:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 9:6-11 “But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever." 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God.”

Paul makes it plain that we should only give what we can give cheerfully and not grudgingly, and he gives us some help in doing this by reminding us of the principle of reaping and sowing. Basically, Paul assures us that, if we want to be able to give a lot, then God will make sure we have enough with which to do it! His teaching is similar to the Lord's instruction in Malachi and Jesus' admonition in Luke:

NKJ Malachi 3:10 “'Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this,' says the LORD of hosts, 'If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.'”

NKJ Luke 6:38 “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

Simply put, our willingness to give is directly proportional to our trust in God to take care of us and to keep His promise that He will provide for us to give more than we ever thought possible. This strong encouragement certainly makes me want to venture far beyond the tithe in my giving! But I have had to begin somewhere, and for me the tithe was a good place to start. I hope it will be so for you as well.

Conclusion

Although Christians are not commanded to tithe in the New Testament, we are certainly encouraged to give in proportion to what we have, to give self-sacrificially so long as we can do so with a cheerful heart, and to be encouraged to give by remembering that we cannot out-give God, who will always provide for us. But perhaps it would be best to end with another quote from John Piper, who again states my own view better than I probably could. In a sermon entitled I Seek Not What Is Yours But You he observes:

I think God took the focus off giving a tithe in the early church because he wants his people to ask themselves a new question. The question that Jesus drives us to ask again and again is not, "How much should I give?" but rather, "How much dare I keep?" One of the differences between the Old Testament and New Testament is the Great Commission. By and large the Old Testament people of God were not a missionary people. But the New Testament Church is fundamentally a missionary people. The spiritual hope and the physical and emotional sustenance that Jesus brought to earth is to be extended by his church to the whole world. The task he gave us is so immense and requires such a stupendous investment of commitment and money that the thought of settling the issue of what we give by a fixed percentage (like a tenth) is simply out of the question. My own conviction is that most middle and upper class Americans who merely tithe are robbing God. In a world where 10,000 people a day starve to death and many more than that are perishing in unbelief the question is not, what percentage must I give?, but how much dare I spend on myself?