On the Leading of the Holy Spirit

Have you ever heard somebody say that the Spirit “led” them to do something? Or something like, “I felt led to” do such and such? I’ve heard those kinds of statements. I’ve said those kinds of things, too. But what do people mean when they say that? And, more importantly, is that a Biblical way of understanding and speaking about the Spirit’s ministry among believers?

It might surprise you, as it did me, to learn that the phrase “led by the Spirit” occurs only twice in the New Testament:

• Romans 8:13-14 – For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
• Galatians 5:16-18 – But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

You’ll notice that both occurrences of “led by the spirit” come in the context of the mortification of sin. The Holy Spirit’s testimony about His own role in “leading” believers is specifically set alongside the putting away the desires and deeds of the flesh. To do that is to walk by the Spirit; that is, to walk by means of Him: to be led by Him. And so if we are going to be relentlessly Biblical, this has to be the way we primarily understand and use that phrase: being led by the Spirit. “The Spirit led me to put off my anger and bitterness.” “The Spirit led me to mortify my lust for attention and recognition.” And so on.

That’s Not How We Use It

But people rarely do restrict their usage of this phrase to the specific context of mortification. Instead, I’ve observed that we use it in (at least) two ways. First, we say that the Spirit led us to do something in order to give glory and credit to God for favorable and gracious circumstances and providences that we’ve experienced. Some good thing has happened, and we simply are being conscious to not take any glory for good things to ourselves. Rather, we desire to ascribe the various mercies we receive to the good, meticulous providence of a sovereign and loving God who ministers to His people through the agency of His Holy Spirit.

And I think this is good. Even though we must stipulate that we’re not using the phrase exactly as Paul coined it, we aren’t trying to slip in any weird theology. We’re just trying to give credit where credit is due. And besides, since Scripture does teach the absolute sovereignty and meticulous providence of God, we have a theological basis for speaking this way. It is good, and right, and proper. In fact, I’d even say that we must give credit to the Spirit in this way.

But some people speak about being led by the Spirit in another way, too. They use it as a seal of their authority for what they have to say or what they propose to do. This is wrong, for it assumes that the Spirit is subjectively “leading” them in some revelatory sense, similar to how Paul was forbidden to enter Asia in Acts 16. (In fact, these people may often cite such passages in Acts, entirely ignoring the drastic differences in redemptive history between then and now.) This is not only not what being “led by the Spirit” means in its Scriptural context (cf., again, Rom 8:14 and Gal 5:18), but it misunderstands how God speaks and how the Spirit guides us in this age: namely, both through the sufficient, Spirit-inspired and God-breathed Scriptures.

It All Comes Back to Authority

The issue of authority is, I think, the kicker for how this second sense of the phrase differs from the first, and also how it errs theologically. When people in the first category are saying that the Spirit led them to do something – for example, God seems to have “laid it on your heart” to pray for someone – they’re simply trying to deflect glory for a good thing that has already happened. By contrast, when people in the second category are saying that the Spirit is leading them to do something – for example, to sell their house and move in with you (true story) – they’re trying to garner authority for something that has not yet happened.

Thus, aside from the strictly Biblical usage of the mortification of sin, the “leading of the Holy Spirit” is discerned much like the decretive will of God: only in retrospect. We’re able to look back on a good thing that God has accomplished in our lives – even something as internal as feeling led to pray for someone some particular week, only later to find out that they had a really rough week and needed that prayer – and discern: “The Spirit was leading me to pray for you this week!”

On the other hand, it is without Scriptural or theological foundation and thus entirely invalid to say, “The Spirit is leading me to sell my house and just step out in faith,” or “The Spirit is leading me to preach in your pulpit this Sunday.” Though the person might be sincere, this really is just scrambling for some authority to validate one’s own subjective gut-feelings and impressions.

And if you disagreed with me, what if I told you that the Spirit led me to write this blog post? What could you do? You'd be entirely stymied by my appeal to the authority of the Spirit with no objective means of evaluation. You most certainly wouldn't want to resist the Holy Spirit, would you? You see how that just becomes a power play?

Scripture is Our Authority

But God has already given us a perfectly sufficient means for evaluating and validating such impressions: it is His perfectly sufficient, always-profitable (2Tim 3:16-17), everything-we-need-for-life-and-godliness (2Pet 1:3) Word, as revealed in many portions and in many ways in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Peter declares that the prophetic word as revealed in Scripture is something more sure even than the personal eye-witness of the transfigured Christ (2Pet 1:16-21, ESV)!

That is our authority. And if anyone attempts to elevate his own subjective impressions to be at least on par with the authority of Scripture by flippantly adding that he was “led by the Spirit” to do something, he dishonors the sufficiency of what the Holy Spirit has already led men to speak and write as the uncontestable Word of God (2Pet 1:21). Indeed, the “things of the Spirit” (ta tou pneumatos; Rom 8:5 cf. 1Cor 2:14) are the words spoken and written by the Apostles as they were taught by the Spirit (1Cor 2:12-13).

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths
when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For when he received honor and glory from God the Father,
and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory,
"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven,
for we were with him on the holy mountain.
And we have something more sure,
the prophetic word,
to which you will do well to pay attention
as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
- 2 Peter 1:16-19, ESV -

Loving God with All Your Mind

Worship Requires a Commiment to Thinking Deeply and Studying Diligently

It is not surprising that the pursuit of truly knowing and thus rightly worshiping God requires a resolved commitment to thinking deeply and studying diligently (2 Tim 2:15). Indeed, the greatest commandment in the Law is that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Mt 22:37). Yet in this age of “evangelical pragmatism…pietistic anti-intellectualism…[and] journalistic bite-sizing” (Piper, Think, 17), it is common that such a call to rigorous study be met with scoffing from those both inside and outside of the church. Many look upon the desire for doctrinal precision as academic snobbery, as they are content to “worship God in their own way.” “As long as one is sincere in their devotion,” contemporary wisdom proffers, “ignorance of truth is to be excused. After all what is truth anyway?”

However, at the well at Sychar the Lord Jesus proclaimed a view of both worship and truth that flies in the face of the relativistic doctrinal apathy that plagues our postmodern culture. “You worship what you do not know” (Jn 4:22), He scolds the Samaritan woman, and thus teaches His people that, as Kevin Vanhoozer notes, “sincerity alone is an insufficient condition of right worship” (Worship at the Well, 8). A true worshiper, as He soon tells her, worships in spirit and truth. It is certainly right for one to be zealous for God and passionately committed to Him. But if that zeal is not according to knowledge, that person is not a true worshiper of the true God, even if he thinks he is (Rom 10:2).

See, it is possible to live our lives intending to worship and glorify God as He has prescribed while worshiping Him defectively (and therefore not truly worshiping Him at all) because of a lack of knowledge. John Calvin underscores the dangers of such an enterprise: “For unless there is knowledge present, it is not God that we worship but a specter or ghost.” Vanhoozer comments, “All of our pious intentions are struck by this thunderbolt, by this thought that we cannot help but worship falsely unless we are guided by God’s Word” (8).

This is precisely why the Christian must commit himself to doing theology, for it is the true Christian’s desire, not to worship in his own way, but to ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name in the way He Himself has prescribed. The stakes are indeed high, especially for those surrounded by a culture such as ours. Bruce Ware admonishes the pietistic anti-intellectualists: “If we are to escape the cult of self and find, instead, the true meaning of life and the path of true satisfaction, if we are to give God the glory rightly and exclusively owed to him…we must behold God for who he is” (God’s Greater Glory, 9).

And so a Christian must diligently apply himself to the discipline of theology, showing himself to be a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. For otherwise he will not worship God for who He is, but who he has imagined Him to be.

And there’s where the pastor’s role comes sharply into focus. This stuff certainly affects the Sunday gathering for corporate worship. Vanhoozer calls us to consider:

What do we do when we worship? We acknowledge and celebrate God’s worth. In worship we come together to remember and to respond to who God is and to what God has done for us. In short, we come together to do theology, though in a form that is more informal, participatory, and musical than it is systematic. (4)

The congregation gathers to remember and respond to who God is and what He has done for us. Yet, by failing to rightly interpret Scripture (comprehensively, holistically, and accurately) the pastor risks leading his people to remember and respond to a god who simply does not exist, a god of the congregation’s own imagination. The severity of such an infraction is arresting, especially in light of Jesus’ statement that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God (Jn 17:3) As we consider such things, I cannot help but hear the terrifying echo of Matthew 7:21-23: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

With the stakes so high, both the undershepherd and the sheep must make war against every speculation and lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5).

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

Systematics and Doctrine Matter

In this brief series on what theology is all about, we've defined the task of doing theology as "the comprehensive, holistic interpretation of Scripture for the purpose of intimately knowing and rightly worshiping God." That is, the reason for all our intellectual strain and diligent study is that we would thereby know and rightly worship God, in accordance with His ultimate purpose for all of life.

After that introductory post, we focused on the part of the definition that centers on Scripture. Our definition of theology has Scripture, the Word of God, at its center. This is so because it is in the pages of Scripture -- the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments -- that God has chosen to reveal Himself to His people.

Today, we hone in on the part of the definition of theology that emphasizes the interpretation of Scripture. That is to say, doing theology involves the interpretation of Scripture for the subordinate goal of understanding and stating what the whole of Scripture has to say about a given topic (cf. Grudem, ST, 21). The product of that process is doctrine. For example, if we examine and interpret all that the Bible has to say about the topic salvation, the end goal and product of that process will be our soteriology, or doctrine of salvation. So, theology is the process of correct, comprehensive, and holistic interpretation of Scripture, and doctrine is the result of that process: the summation of a biblical theme that states a truth and calls for a response.

Of course, we immediately face objections here as well. In His gracious revelation to His people, God did not give us a theology textbook. He gave us a library of history books, stories, poetry, songs, proverbial and wisdom sayings, prophecies of judgment and blessing, chronicles of lives and teachings, and didactic letters. Because of this, many have been critical of those who seek to do theology in any systematic fashion. They argue, "If God had intended that we study, codify, and appropriate truth like that, well then He would have given us the Bible in that form." They also are wary that one’s theological confession will eventually replace one’s dependence on the Bible itself. We're too concerned, so the argument goes, with "'epistemological certainty' and 'theological systems.'"

However, the Lord’s Great Commission to the Church is to make disciples of Him by teaching persons all that He has commanded us. If followers of Jesus Christ are to be obedient to the great charge He has given us, we must teach the doctrines of the Word of God. In order to accomplish that task, “it is necessary,” as Grudem says, “to collect and summarize all the Scripture passages on a particular subject” (27).

While it's true that we could simply direct a new Christian to read from Genesis through Revelation every time he has a doctrinal question, such a practice would not be the most beneficial for him. Instead, we must apply ourselves to the task of engaging and interacting with the whole of God's revelation in order to understand what it teaches. And we must do so both comprehensively -- taking into account the entirety of the Biblical witness -- as well as holisically -- taking into account the interrelatedness and unity of Scripture, and ensuring that the Scripture itself be its own primary interpreter.

If "teaching to obey" is part of the Church's Great Commission, then no matter how you slice the pie, doctrine matters.

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know

As we reflect on the doing of theology as a means to the end of the worship of God, the first thing to consider is, as Jesus says to the woman at the well, true worshipers worship what they know. Worship in ignorance is no worship at all. Therefore, if we are to worship God, we must go to the only source of His self-revelation that He has given: the Scriptures.

Many different understandings of what it means to do theology abound even within evangelicalism. For our purposes, we will define theology as "the comprehensive, holistic interpretation of Scripture for the purpose of intimately knowing and rightly worshiping God" (Andy Snider, Class Notes).

First of all, our definition of theology has Scripture, the Word of God, at its center. This is so because this is how god has chosen to reveal Himself to His people. We are aware that there are those who view such a conviction as inherently rationalistic. For example, in an article on theological method entitled, "How I Changed My Mind," John Armstrong wrote, "Theology must be a humble human attempt to 'hear him' -- never about rational approaches to texts."

Such men prefer instead to focus on the experience of God, whether that experience be personal or communal. Friedrich Schleiermacher is the archetypical liberal, emphasizing the individual's personal experience with God (his "God-consciousness") as the source of doctrine. Postliberals such as George Lindbeck and Brian McLaren focus more on theology as a community's dynamic experience of God.

While such detractors object to this exaltation of Scripture, arguing that is in the person of Christ Himself that God is supremely and preeminently revealed (Jn 1:18; 14:9; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2), they err by pitting the Living Word against the written Word. In the opening verses of the letter to the Hebrews, the author indeed acknowledges that in these last days God has spoken to us in His son. And while he does intend to showcase the supremacy of Christ over even the Old Testament revelation to the fathers through the prophets (Heb 1:1-2). God has indeed spoken through the prophets, and such revelation has been recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Further, the Apostle Peter, who himself saw the revealed glory of the transfigured Christ on the Mount of Olives, declared that we have in the Scriptures "something more sure" than that glorious revelation (2Pet 1:19). Apparently, Peter regarded Scripture as a superior source of revelation even than his own amazing experience of Christ Himself.

Finally, Christ Himself has legitimized this focus on Scripture as the foundational source of theology (cf. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, xxviii). When He came to the synagogue in Nazareth intending to teach doctrine, He turned to the words of Scripture and announced that the prophecy of Isaiah had been fulfilled in their hearing (Lk 4:16-21). When He was questioned about the doctrines concerning marriage and divorce, He appealed to the text of Scripture as His authority (Mk 10:1-9). When He sought to expound the doctrine of the Messiah, He presented an exegesis of Psalm 110 (Mt 22:41-46). And when He was teaching the doctrine of the Messiah's sufferings and resurrection, He established its truth by appealing to "all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Lk 24:44).

Thus, the study of the Scriptures, indeed profitable to equip the man of God for every good work (2Tim 3:16-17), is the divinely-appointed means of the study of God Himself. Any vague notion of "knowing Jesus," "studying Jesus," or "pursuing a relationship with Jesus" that does not include the study of, the knowledge of, and the pursuit of the Scriptures, is subbiblical and should be considered suspect. If we are to know God, we must seek Him by means of His revelation: the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

That Bible Found Me

The Self-Authenticating Witness of the Word of God to the Soul of G. Campbell Morgan

From: Jill Morgan, A Man of the Word: Life of G. Campbell Morgan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 39-40.

For three years this young man, seriously contemplating a future of teaching and ultimately of preaching, felt the troubled waters of the stream of religious controversy carrying him beyond his depth. He read the new books which debated such questions as, "Is God Knowable?" and found that the authors' concerted decision was, "He is not knowable." He became confused and perplexed. No longer was he sure of that which his father proclaimed in public, and had taught him in the home.

Other books appeared, seeking to defend the Bible from the attacks which were being made upon it. The more he read, the more unanswerable became the questions which filled his mind. One who has never suffered it cannot appreciate the anguish of spirit young Campbell Morgan endured during this crucial period of his life. Through all the after years it gave him the greatest sympathy with young people passing through similar experiences at college -- experiences which he likened to "passing through a trackless desert."

At last the crisis came when he admitted to himself his total lack of assurance that the Bible was the authoritative Word of God to man. He immediately cancelled all preaching engagements. Then, taking all his books, both those attacking and those defending the Bible, he put them all in a corner cupboard. Relating this afterwards, as he did many times in preaching, he told of turning the key in the lock of the door. "I can hear the click of that lock now," he used to say. He went out of the house, and down the street to a bookshop. He bought a new Bible and, returning to his room with it, he said to himself: "I am no longer sure that this is what my father claims it to be -- the Word of God. But of this I am sure. If it be the Word of God, and if I come to it with an unprejudiced and open mind, it will bring assurance to my soul of itself."

"That Bible found me," he said, "I began to read and study it then, in 1883. I have been a student ever since, and I still am (in 1938)."

At the end of two years Campbell Morgan emerged from that eclipse of faith absolutely sure that the Bible was, in very deed and truth, none other than the Word of the living God. Quoting again from his account of the incident: "...This experience is what, at last, took me back into the work of preaching, and into the work of the ministry. I soon found foothold enough to begin to preach, and from that time I went on."

With this crisis behind him and this new certainty thrilling his soul, there came a compelling conviction. This Book, being what it was, merited all that a man could give to its study, not merely for the sake of the personal joy of delving deeply into the heart and mind and will of God, but also in order that those truths discovered by such searching of the Scriptures should be made known to a world of men groping for light, and perishing in the darkness with no clear knowledge of that Will.

The gospel of the blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its evidence,
so much as some think:
it has its highest and most proper evidence in itself.
- Jonathan Edwards -

For the word of God is living and active
and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow,
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
- Hebrews 4:12 -

The Abrahamic Covenant in the Book of Joshua

Don't forget to mouse over the verse references.

The Abrahamic Covenant enters as a theme in the book of Joshua early in chapter 1, when Yahweh encourages Joshua by reminding them that he is going to lead God’s people into the land that He swore He would give to their fathers (Josh 1:6). Also, before the sons of Israel go into battle against Jericho, Yahweh commands that they be circumcised (Josh 5:2-3); that is, that they be given the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:10-14). In the book of Joshua, we see the prospect of the fulfillment of the long-awaited promise to Abraham: “To your descendants I will give this land” (Gen 12:7).

And in Joshua, the Israelites do go into the land that Yahweh promised to give them in covenant with Abraham. It even seems to suggest that they conquered all of the land (Josh 10:40; 11:16). Indeed, “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes, Thus the land had rest from war” (Josh 11:23).

Though God spoke in this way, we also see that He says, “…very much of the land remains to be possessed” (Josh 13:1). Further, Israel’s failure to conquer all of the land does not remain morally neutral. In fact, an emphasis in Joshua – which will become an even greater emphasis in the book of Judges (cf. Jdg 1-2) – is that failure to conquer the land is disobedience to Yahweh. For though He commanded Israel to utterly destroy the nations that they might completely possess the land (cf. Josh 6:17-24; 7:11-15; 8:8, 26-28; 10:28-40; 11:8-15, 21-22), we are told repeatedly that they do not do so (Josh 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13). Exasperated, Joshua chastises Israel in 18:3: “How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has given you?” So, notwithstanding Joshua 11:23, Israel did not take possession of the whole land.

And yet, in 21:43-45, it seems to suggest that the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled: "So Yahweh gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And Yahweh gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; Yahweh gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which Yahweh had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass."

Joshua says that Yahweh gave the land to Israel as He had sworn to their fathers (thus emphasizing the covenant promise), gave them rest, and not one of the promises failed but came to pass. However, after that declaration, in 23:4-5, as Joshua is addressing Israel before his death he says, “Yahweh your God, He will thrust [these nations] out from before you and drive them from before you; and you will possess their land, just as Yahweh your God promised you.” After saying that Yahweh gave them all the land and rest of every side according to the promise to the fathers, Joshua then speaks of the complete possession of the land according to the promise of Yahweh as an event that is yet future.

So what are we to conclude from this? Well, what we see in Joshua does indeed relate to the Abrahamic Covenant. Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness is put on display in how He constantly works and fights for Israel (Josh 1:9; 6:16; 8:7; 10:10-14; 11:20; 23:3; 24:1-13, 17-18) to fulfill His promise to give them the land (cf. Gen 12:7; 15:7, 18). However, the disobedience of Israel (cf. Deut 19:8-10) despite even the steadfast faithfulness of Yahweh also is the theme of the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant, the administration of which is also present in Joshua (Josh 1:7-8; 8:31-35; 22:2-5; 23:6, 11, 15-16; 24:26).

Therefore, we should understand that Yahweh gave Israel the land, demonstrating His unwavering faithfulness to His word. But Israel failed to completely possess the land, demonstrating their typical disobedience. The Abrahamic promise that His descendants would be given the land as an everlasting possession (Gen 17:8; cf. Gen 13:14) is not fulfilled in Joshua. As promised (cf. Num 33:55-56), this disobedience brought further disobedience until finally Israel and Judah were themselves dispossessed from the land in acts of Yahweh’s judgment (2Ki 17:6; 25:8-11).

Thus the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant remains a future event when Israel will be restored from captivity, gathered from where they are scattered, and brought back to the land with circumcised hearts (cf. Deut 30:1-6; Jer 30-33; Ezek 20:33-44; 36:22-38), where they will possess it as an everlasting possession (Gen 17:8; cf. Gen 13:14).

"As for you, O house of Israel," thus says the Lord Yahweh,
"Go, serve everyone his idols; but later you will surely listen to Me,
and My holy name you will profane no longer with your gifts and with your idols.
For on My holy mountain, on the high mountain of Israel," declares the Lord Yahweh,
"there the whole house of Israel, all of them, will serve Me in the land;
there I will accept them
and there I will seek your contributions and the choicest of your gifts,
with all your holy things.

As a soothing aroma I will accept you when I bring you out from the peoples
and gather you from the lands where you are scattered;
and I will prove Myself holy among you in the sight of the nations.

And you will know that I am Yahweh, when I bring you into the land of Israel,
into the land which I swore to give to your forefathers.
There you will remember your ways and all your deeds
with which you have defiled yourselves;
and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight
for all the evil things that you have done.

Then you will know that I am Yahweh
when I have dealt with you for My name's sake,
not according to your evil ways or according to your corrupt deeds,
O house of Israel," declares the Lord Yahweh.'"

- Ezekiel 20:39-44 -

Grounding our Experience of Fellowship in Objective Reality

I wonder what comes into your mind when you hear the word "fellowship." Some may think of friends. Others think of having interesting and inspiring conversations. Others think of sharing a meal or having a snack. Still others think of the time of a church service or Bible study where the teaching is officially over and everyone gets to just "hang out."

It's funny how certain words -- Biblical words -- come to be co-opted and used by our own circles of the Evangelical subculture. It's also kind of scary. We can be using the exact same language as the Bible, and thus suppose we are being Biblical, and yet mean something entirely different than the Bible means by it. We have refused to read such words in their Biblical contexts, and instead have ripped them from their contexts and then invest and infuse them with our own meanings. (For an example of how we've done that with the word 'love,' click here.)

The Lord Jesus recently blessed me with a wonderful opportunity to regularly teach and shepherd a terrific group of saints in a Bible study setting as a ministry of Grace Church. As I thought and prayed about what I'd wanted to teach on to begin my time with them, my heart was inclined to do something on fellowship. A home Bible study -- whether at a church with 70 members or 7,000 -- is a place where life is lived out together in community, a place where we can spur one another on to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24-25), and to encourage one another as long as it is called "Today," so that none will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Heb 3:12).

And so I looked up the instances of the word koinonia in the New Testament. And I found that in an overwhelming number of instances, koinonia has very little to do with what mainstream American Christians call fellowship. Here's a breakdown of its use in the New Testament:

Fellowship with Each Other

• Acts 2:42 – They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
• 1 John 1:3, 7 – …what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. … but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
  

Contributing Resources

• Romans 15:26 – For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
• 2 Corinthians 8:4 – …begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints…
• 2 Corinthians 9:13 – Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all…
• Hebrews 13:16 – And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
  

Fellowship with The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

• 1 Corinthians 1:9 – God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
• 1 Corinthians 10:16 – Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
• 1 John 1:3, 6 – …what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. … If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
• 2 Corinthians 13:14 – The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
• Philippians 2:1 – Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion…
  

Participation and Partnership

• 2 Corinthians 6:14 – Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
• Galatians 2:9 – …and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
• Philippians 1:5 – in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.
• Philemon 1:6 – and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.
• Philippians 3:10 – that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.
  

Objective Reality

What I come away with as I read these uses of koinonia is the notion that fellowship is an objective reality. As noted above, it is an objective state of relationship with each of the Members of the Trinity. It is a sharing in the Good News of the Gospel (Phil 1:5), in faith in Christ (Phm 1:6), and even in sufferings (Phil 3:10). One is said to have fellowship in something when one gives his money and resources (Rom 15:24; 2Cor 8:6; 9:13; Heb 13:16). And even the fellowship that we have with each other is spoken of as an objective reality based upon the work of God in Christ, and not merely a subjective enjoyment of one another (1Jn 1:3, 7).

And even where the word koinonia is not used to describe this concept based on the objective work of Christ, the reality of it is apparent elsewhere in the Scriptures. In Romans 6, Paul speaks about our baptism into Christ (i.e., our salvation) in terms of union, or fellowship, with Him.

• Romans 6:3-7 - Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

Then in 1 Corinthians 12, he speaks of this same baptism in terms of our union with Christ's body. As we are united to the Head, we are also united to all those who are united to the Head.

• 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

And so, Biblically speaking, our fellowship is an objective reality that was accomplished by the atoning work of Christ.

Consider what James Montgomery Boice says about contemporary vs. Biblical concepts of fellowship (from his commentary on Philippians, p. 31):

“The word fellowship has been so watered down in contemporary speech that it conveys only a faint suggestion of what it meant in earlier times. When we speak of fellowship today, we generally mean no more than comradeship, the sharing of good times. But fellowship originally meant much more than a sharing of something, like the fellowship of bank robbers dividing their loot. It meant a sharing in something, participating in something greater than the people involved and more lasting than the activity of any given moment. When the Bible uses the word, it means being caught up into a communion created by God. […]

“This is the way the Bible regards fellowship, and it was this for which Paul was so thankful in the case of the young church at Philippi [1:5]. They may have had things in common. But Paul is not speaking of these. He is thankful for their share in the gospel of God. They had been taken up into a divine fellowship. They were united, not upon a social level, but by their commitment to the truths of the gospel.”

So this idea we have of fellowship as being the time in the worship service or Bible study where we all talk and have food is a misunderstanding of what the Bible says fellowship is. Of course it involves our interaction, conversation, and enjoyment of one another. But all of that – let's call it – subjective stuff is rooted in something objective: the fellowship we have with the Father and with each other by virtue of the saving work of Christ on the cross (Rom 6:3-7; 1Cor 12:12-14).

And one thing that can make our subjective experience of fellowship with each other seem awkward, or forced, is forgetting that our fellowship is grounded in this objective reality. We base our conversations and interactions with each other more on superficial things than on the fellowship we have as beneficiaries of the Gospel and as children of God. We base our "fellowship" with each other on shared interests, mutual hobbies, common experiences, being in similar "life stages," and so on, and so we exclude those who don't fit that mold – even though we may not intend to or even know that we're doing it.

Improving our Fellowship by Improving our Conversation

So what can we do to remedy this problem? How can we better ground our subjective fellowship in the reality of our objective fellowship?

Well, the primary way I believe we fail in this is in our conversation – the things we talk to each other about. And so I think that's the place to start improving. The big take-away application point from all of this talk about subjective and objective fellowship is that we must improve our everyday, relaxed, natural conversation, especially with other believers. We devote so much time to talking to each other about our families, our jobs, sports events, movies we’ve seen, TV shows we watch, aspirations we have and so on. And these are good things. But the things of Christ, spiritual things, the things of the Scriptures are so much more worthy of our attention and conversation than those other things. And comparatively, they often don't occupy enough of our interaction with each other.

In Deuteronomy 6, just after God gives Israel the Greatest Commandment to love Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, the very next thing He says is, “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Dt 6:6-9).

He commands them to be talking about His Word all the time. I think that it's significant that this command comes directly after the Greatest Commandment in all the Law (Mt 22:36-38). I take that to mean that there is no surer way to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, than to be constantly meditating and musing over and speaking about His truth. And you’ll remember that keeping the first commandment is how you will keep the second greatest commandment (cf. 1Jn 5:2), which is: to love your neighbor as yourself.

Love for each other – the cornerstone of our fellowship – is based on our love for God. And our love for God is greatly affected by how great a place His Word and His truth occupies in our hearts and in our mouths.

So, after a sermon in church or a Bible lesson at a mid-week Bible study, don’t just immediately start talking about the weather. Talk with each other about the sermon or the lesson. Talk about the main Scripture text in the message, about significant things that stood out to you. Talk about how you were affected by God's Word.

Let the subjective experience of your fellowship with each other be rooted in the real, objective basis for that fellowship: the fellowship that we have as fellow-partakers of the grace of Christ.

Therefore, laying aside falsehood,
speak truth each one of you with his neighbor,
for we are members of one another.
- Ephesians 4:25 -

Repentance for the Christian

As we've discussed what the Bible has to say about the concept of repentance, we have observed that the Scriptures speak about repentance in two different contexts. There is a repentance associated with conversion that leads to eternal life (Ac 11:18), as well as a repentance associated with the Christian life that is a part of daily sanctification. Thus, many of the same principles of repentance in the event of justification also hold true for repentance in the process of the believer’s sanctification. The intellectual, emotional, and volitional components apply to the Christian life as well as conversion, for the Scriptures demonstrate that a believer’s repentance should (1) be continual and ongoing, and (2) include a sorrow over sin which brings about (a) confession and turning from that sin, (b) a corresponding turn to God, and finally (c) the bearing of fruit in keeping with that professed repentance.

While many of the passages we've discussed in previous posts describe the nature of repentance at the moment of conversion from spiritual death to spiritual life, Scripture is clear that even God’s people are called to ongoing repentance as a result of their sin. Repentance is not to be considered a one-time act for Christians. Indeed, Christ intends that repentance be a staple of the Christian lifestyle. As He is discussing principles for ongoing life as a part of His church, specifically in the areas of sin, confrontation, forgiveness, and restoration (cf. Mt 18:15-20), Peter interjects and asks how often he should forgive a brother who sins against him. In the parallel account in Luke 17, Jesus says, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Lk 17:3-4). Here, Jesus teaches that ongoing repentance is the basis for Christians’ forgiveness of and restoration to fellowship with each other. Though our justification frees us from the penalty of sin, our remaining flesh causes the presence of sin to remain as well. Therefore, as we continually sin against God and others, we must continually repent. In a believer’s life, a spirit of repentance must be as “indwelling” as is his remaining sin. Chris Jenkins, in his 2008 article, What is Repentance? Settling the Debate, in the Journal of Modern Ministry, helpfully summarizes: “At conversion, a sinner purposes to turn from sin generally conceived (i.e., as the dominant principle of life), and yet throughout the sanctified life, he also turns from specific sins as they occur.”

While there is indeed no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1), it is plain that godly sorrow and mourning over one’s sin is a part of a believer’s repentant lifestyle. Paul rejoices that his severe letter made the Corinthian believers sorrowful for a time, because their sorrow produced in them a repentance without regret (2Cor 7:9-10). Paul himself, the very one to proclaim that great promise of Romans 8:1, only a few verses earlier lamented greatly over the wretchedness of his own continual battle with sin: I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (Rom 7:22-24; cf. 7:14-25).

After his threefold denial of the Lord Jesus, the Apostle Peter was said to have "wept bitterly" (Mt 26:75), no doubt experiencing the emotional component of repentance signified by nacham. King David, the man after God’s own heart (1Sam 13:14), frequently expressed his repentant grief over his sin (Ps 40:12), and in some cases even experienced physical effects of “the agitation of his heart” (Ps 38:8), such as being “bent over and greatly bowed down” (Ps 38:6) experiencing the burning of his loins (Ps 38:7), and groaning over the wasting away of his body and the loss of his vitality (Ps 32:3-4). Even the writer of that queen of psalms in which he celebrates his delight in the Law of God nevertheless closes with the lamentation, “I have gone astray like a lost sheep” (Ps 119:176). Thus, the repentant believer should be being led to repentance by the grief he experiences over his sin.

Such godly sorrow will lead to the open acknowledgment, confession, and repudiation of sin. King David explicitly affirms this in two of his most classic penitential psalms. In Psalm 32:5, he said, "I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to Yahweh'; and You forgave the guilt of my sin." In Psalm 51, he cried out, "For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Ps 51:3-4). David is clear about acknowledging and confessing his sin, as well as purposing to continue his life before Yahweh without persisting in such sin.

These things are not limited to David. Job, unquestionably a believer in Yahweh (Job 1:1, 8), acknowledges his sinful attitude and speech by confessing, “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (Job 42:3). That repentance also involves his repudiating, or turning from, his specific sin is plain by his simple declaration: “Therefore I retract” (Job 42:6). Jesus confirms this need for believers' open acknowledgment, confession, and repudiation of sin in His stern warnings to the seven churches in Revelation, calling them to turn from their sins of weakening love (Rev 2:4-5), of tolerating false teaching (Rev 2:15-16), of deeds of immorality (Rev 2:21-22), and of indifference towards Christ (Rev 3:15-19). A repentant believer, therefore, should name and confess his specific sins before God and, based on the promises of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit, purpose to forsake such sins.

Almost indistinguishable from the believer’s turn from specific sin is his turn to God. Confession itself is an act of returning to God (or another offended party) and a looking to Him for forgiveness. The example of the sinning brother in Luke 17 is said to return to his brother seven times (Lk 17:4); his turning from sin is expressed in his turn to the one whom he sinned against. Also, David declares, “I acknowledged my sin to You,” and “I will confess my transgressions to Yahweh” (Ps 32:5). His plea for forgiveness is said to be “according to [God’s] lovingkindness” and “the greatness of [His] compassion” (Ps 51:1). In turning from his sin, then, the believer is to turn to the Lord God and wholly hope in His character for forgiveness.

Finally, the believer’s turning to God in repentance will always result in corresponding obedience. The Corinthians’ repentance led them to specific action that matched their profession, for which Paul rejoices (2Cor 7:11). David prays for forgiveness, and subsequently declares that he will teach sinners the ways of Yahweh (Ps 51:13), joyfully sing of His righteousness (Ps 51:14), and declare His praise (Ps 51:15). Even Peter’s turn from his sin of denial and his return to the Lord Jesus is evident in his fearless testimony of Christ before the rulers and elders of Israel on multiple occasions (Ac 4:8-11, 18-20; 5:27-32, 41-42). And indeed, Jesus Himself declares to the churches that amending their ways and performing righteous deeds is a necessary fruit of their repentance (Rev 2:5). While Christians are not forgiven or received by God because of these fruits of obedience, such obedience is the necessary evidence of true repentance.

In conclusion, then, whether speaking of the sinner’s conversion or the believer’s Christian life, Biblical repentance involves (1) the penitent’s intellectual recognition of his culpability because the offensiveness of his sin, along with (2) an emotional remorse and godly sorrow that he has offended God and has, for a time, forfeited the joy of fellowship with Him. These finally lead to (3) a conscious exercise of his volition as he freely and turns from his sin and delightfully turns to God in Christ. And as that turn of his will must be because he finds the glory of Christ more satisfying than the faux-pleasures of sin, it will therefore result in the believer’s joyful obedience to the Word of God.

Biblical Repentance: Introduction

1. Exegesis
1.1. Nacham: Biblical Repentance Involves the Emotions
1.2. Shuv: The Heart's Obedient Turn from Sin to God
1.3. Metanoeo: A Fundamental Change of the Whole Man

2. Discussion
2.1. Summary and Discussion: Intellectual, Emotional, Volitional
2.2. Repentance for the Christian

3. Application
3.1. Repentance vs. Penance
3.2. Counsel to a Sinning Brother
3.3. Homework for Sinning Brother
3.4. The Effect on My Personal Walk with Christ

Summary and Discussion: Intellectual, Emotional, Volitional

From the foregoing discussion of nacham, shuv, and metanoéō we are able to discern the nature of Biblical repentance. The Scriptures teach that repentance begins with the sinner’s acknowledgment of his sin and his need for forgiveness. His understanding of the offensiveness of his sin before a holy, loving God produces in him great mourning, sorrow, and even shame and humiliation. His disgust with himself and his wayward unrighteousness leads him to repudiate his wickedness, acknowledging it as idolatry, and to decisively turn away from such things. As he turns from his former way of life, he turns to faithfully trust and serve the God who alone is worthy of his worship and there finds forgiveness; he begins to seek His fellowship and restoration to Him by faith. Finally, he does not regard that as the final step, but lovingly, from the heart, he desires to live a life in obedience to the revealed will of God empowered by the work of the Holy Spirit. The evidence of his inward repentance is manifest in his external deeds. Biblical repentance, then, can be helpfully summarized as being made up of three components: (1) an intellectual component, (2) an emotional component, and (3) a volitional component.

Intellectually, "human beings must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the divine law as perfect and binding, and themselves as falling short of the requirements of a holy God" (ISBE, 4:136) This is evident, for example, with Job, who when confronted by Yahweh confessed, “I have declared that which I did not understand” (Job 42:3). Once Yahweh revealed his sin to him, his response was to “retract, and I repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:6). Similarly, when Nathan the prophet revealed to King David the wickedness of his actions, David responded by solemnly admitting, “I have sinned against Yahweh” (2Sam 12:13), and by calling out for grace: "Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions" (Ps 51:1ff).

However, a mere intellectual understanding of our sin is not Biblical repentance. If your repentance remains only in the intellectual realm, it has fallen short of Biblical repentance. There are a number of examples in Scripture of people who express a knowledge of their sin and an intention to turn from it, but who do not repent.

The oppressive Pharoah repeatedly demonstrated his obstinacy regarding letting the people of Israel go from their oppression in Egypt. After the plague of hail, however, he seemed to have repented from his wickedness: "Then Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, 'I have sinned this time; Yahweh is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones'" (Ex 9:27). That sounds good. He's confessed to his sinfulness and to Yahweh's righteousness, and then repeats that he and his people are acting wickedly. In the next verse he promises to let them go (Ex 9:28). However, "when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go" (Ex 9:34-35). And so Pharaoh's intellectual 'repentance' was no repentance at all.

We see similar stories in the case of the evil prophet Balaam, who though he confessed his sin and expressed a desire to obey (Num 22:34), is nevertheless remembered by Scripture as a teacher of error (Jude 1:11) who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2Pet 2:15). We also remember the wicked King Saul who rejected the word of Yahweh by failing to destroy Amalek (1Sam 15:26). Even though he seemed to intellectually repent (1Sam 15:24-25), Yahweh did not receive him, demonstrating that his repentance was not genuine. Repentance, therefore, is not merely intellectual.

Biblical repentance also requires that there be an emotional component. This is that sorrow and regret so beautifully captured by nacham. It is Ephraim’s smiting of his thigh (Jer 31:19), Job’s humiliation on the ash heap (Job 42:6), and a mourning over one’s sin (Mt 5:4) that longs to be restored to the joy of the salvation which belongs to Yahweh (Ps 51:12). It is the godly sorrow which leads to repentance and to life, as opposed to a mere worldly sorrow which leads to death (2Cor 7:9-10). The case of the ultimate traitor, Judas, demonstrates this very thing. Upon seeing that Christ had been condemned, he "felt remorse" (Mt 27:3) and returned the blood money to the chief priests and elders, and said, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood" (Mt 27:4). Here is someone who had been affected emotionally to the point of both action and confession, and yet his was not the Biblical repentance that leads to salvation, but the worldly sorrow that leads to death (2Cor 7:10; cf. Mt 27:5). Thus, while sorrow and emotional response are not the equivalent of repentance, they may often be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin (ISBE, 4:136). In other words, repentance should not be equated with sorrow, but often godly sorrow will be the impetus that leads one to repentance.

Finally, there is a volitional component which involves the penitent's necessary genuine turning from sin (cf. shuv). Herein is the change of the sinner's mind, his will, and his whole purpose which is expressed so well by metanoéō. This is illustrated by John the Baptist's response to those who ask him what their lives should look like after they repented. He responds by saying a man ought to stop being greedy and indifferent and begin to lend liberally to his neighbor (Lk 3:11). He said that the tax collector should cease from exacting more money from their debtors than they ought and to "collect no more than what you have been ordered to" (Lk 3:12-13). He said that soldiers should no longer steal and accuse people falsely, but to be content with their wages and to to testify truthfully (Lk 3:14).

It is further illustrated in the case of the rich chief tax collector Zaccheus who demonstrates his repentance from his wicked extortion by making restitution fourfold and donating to the poor (Lk 19:5-10). After Jesus told him that He desired to stay at his house, Zaccheus said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much" (Lk 19:8). And Jesus saw that his repentance was genuine, and declared, "Today salvation has come to this house" (Lk 19:9).

It is clear, then, that the will must be involved in true, Biblical repentance. However, though such acts of the will are essential to Biblical repentance, "God will accept no external substitute for the necessary internal change. … Not material sacrifice, but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God" (ISBE, 4:136). Though a willful obedience on the part of the repentant sinner is necessary, it is not the mere obedience itself that is repentance. It is not like a business transaction or a quid pro quo, where we simply "do better" this time, and God rewards our good deeds. These volitional acts come from a heart that is changed. Hence Yahweh calls Israel to rend their hearts and not merely their garments (Joel 2:12-13) and to circumcise their hearts and not merely put away their idols (Jer 4:1-4).

And so is our summary of the exegesis of Biblical repentance. It is an emotional, affected turn of the heart in obedience away from sin and toward God, which amounts to a fundamental change of the whole man: a change in mind, in heart, and in desires.

Next time, we will begin to look at how to apply this understanding of Biblical repentance to one who is already a Christian, yet who because of his continual sin needs to continually repent.

Biblical Repentance: Introduction

1. Exegesis
1.1. Nacham: Biblical Repentance Involves the Emotions
1.2. Shuv: The Heart's Obedient Turn from Sin to God
1.3. Metanoeo: A Fundamental Change of the Whole Man

2. Discussion
2.1. Summary and Discussion: Intellectual, Emotional, Volitional
2.2. Repentance for the Christian

3. Application
3.1. Repentance vs. Penance
3.2. Counsel to a Sinning Brother
3.3. Homework for Sinning Brother
3.4. The Effect on My Personal Walk with Christ

"All Truth is God's Truth"

Whenever I hear this assertion it's usually being given as substantiation for some devaluation of the sufficiency of Scripture. Whether that be trying to force billions of years into Genesis 1-3, claiming that one's counseling methodology ought to be informed by secular psychological theory, or seeking to legitimize an over-concern with worldliness in the name of being missional or contextualizing the Gospel, this phrase gets a lot of mileage from those seeking to evade the teaching of the sufficient Scripture by affording undue authority to other sources of knowledge. When it comes down to it, the question of the validity of this statement is a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? What is the authoritative source of all knowledge?

The Bible contains the revelation of the specific words of God to specific people. Because of this specificity, the Bible is said to be the "special revelation" of God (cf. Grudem, p. 122-123). General revelation, on the other hand, is "the knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity" (Grudem, p. 122). Such revelation is "general," or "common," because it is revealed to all humanity -- it's something we all have in common, so to speak.

The relationship of the authority of special revelation and general revelation is of particular importance to the issues raised above, i.e., the age of the earth, Biblical vs. integrationist counseling, and the nature of the natural man's spiritual death. The scientist, psychologist, or postmodern thinker argues that all truth is God’s truth, and so if something is found to be true by means of scientific analysis of general revelation, well then that is a manifestation of God’s common grace. Since truth which is gleaned from general revelation, it is argued, is just as much God’s truth as truth gleaned from special revelation, both special and general revelation are equally authoritative and thus each ought to have a place in Christian epistemology.

As a dear brother of mine has said, "Perhaps all truth is God's truth, but not all words are God's Word."

The problem with this "All-truth-is-God's-truth" line of reasoning is that it simply does not acknowledge the inherent difference between general revelation and special revelation in both glory and authority. Scripture assigns to itself more authority than it does to general revelation. Though general revelation is perceived through God’s creation, and though God’s creation began as "very good" (Gen 1:31), the consequences of the Fall of man present a twofold problem. First, God subjected the entire creation to futility (Rom 8:20-23), cursing His "very good" creation as a result of Adam's sin (Gen 3:17). Second, when Adam sinned, all humanity died with him (Rom 5:12). So even though it is through creation that the invisible attributes of God have been clearly seen, leaving men with no excuse (Rom 1:20), the depravity of fallen man causes him to suppress that clearly revealed truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), rendering both fallen creation and fallen man unqualified epistemological authorities. The creation in its current state is not a reliable subject of study because of its corruption, and since no part of humanity's existence was unaffected by the Fall, our total depravity makes us unreliable students.

The Word of God, on the other hand, is not fallen. Indeed, the law of Yahweh remains perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous altogether (Ps 19:7-9). Unlike the corrupted creation and its depraved students, the integrity – and thus, the authority – of special revelation is entirely unblemished by the Fall. Further, Yahweh's perfect law "restores the soul" (Ps 19:7) of depraved mankind, something general revelation cannot do. "Far greater than all general revelation is the glory of God revealed in His Word, because the Word transforms the heart of man" (Street, Counseling, p. 44).

Those who tout "All truth is God's truth" as a way to put observation of creation (scientific or otherwise) on equal footing with Scripture simply do not realize the inherent difference in glory and authority between general revelation and special revelation.

Even though the heavens are declaring the glory of God (Ps 19:1) such that men are without excuse (Rom 1:20), general revelation cannot free man from the corruption that even it is enslaved to (Rom 8:20-23). Only special revelation can do that; that is, the Word of God which is perfect, restoring the soul (Ps 19:7), able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15) .

So all truth may be God's truth, but not all words are God's Word. God's decisive, sufficient, perfect Word surpasses even His good, yet corrupted, creation in both glory and authority.

And that must drive our epistemology. Otherwise, it is not a Christian epistemology.

The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of Yahweh are true; they are righteous altogether.
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.
- Psalm 19:7-11 -

All Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable
for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -

Biblical Repentance: Introduction

Few doctrines of the historic Christian faith lie closer to the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the course of the Christian life than the doctrine of repentance. Indeed, when our Lord was said to first preach the Gospel of forgiveness of sins in His name, the first command He uttered was, “Repent” (Mk 1:15). Yet within Christendom – and even within Evangelicalism – there is widespread confusion and disagreement about the precise nature of repentance.

What does it mean to repent? What is the place of our feelings in repentance? Should we feel like we haven't repented unless we've felt sorry enough? Or should we confess and move on and trust that our feelings will catch up with us later? What about our works? Do we have to offer some sort of satisfaction for our sin beyond what Christ has accomplished, like feeling sorry enough or confessing to others? Or does the requirement of "obedience in keeping with repentance" undermine justification by faith alone? What is it, exactly, that God wants from us when we confess our sin and seek forgiveness? How should our walk with Christ look if we have a Biblical understanding of repentance?

Over the next couple of weeks I want to do a series on Biblical repentance. In the upcoming posts, I'll try to answer some of the questions I asked above in a number of ways. First, I'll examine three of the most common words used in the Bible to signify repentance. We'll study each word in its original Hebrew or Greek from a lexical and semantic perspective. The analysis of these words and their surrounding contexts will give us a theology of the nature of Biblical repentance. We'll see how Scripture uses these terms and look at what the authors of Scripture mean when they talk about repentance.

Once we have an idea about the nature of repentance, we'll look to apply that understanding to repentance both in justification and sanctification. In justification, we'll look at repentance as the sinner's turning from his sin as the ruling principle of his life. This takes place at conversion. Regarding sanctification, we'll look at the believer's habitual, ongoing repentance of specific sins throughout his Christian walk.

After this, I will spend some time contrasting Biblical repentance to the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance. That might seem a bit random, but I assure you that I'm not just going out of my way to pick on Catholics. The reality is, many Evangelical Protestants who would vehemently denounce the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance -- a sort of paying God back for your sins -- unwittingly practice penance while thinking they are practicing Biblical repentance. This is something that so many of us are prone to, because it is a natural human inclination to try to earn one's own righteousness before God. This goes to the heart of the Gospel, and calls into question the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

Then, after all of those theoretical considerations, I'll do my best to specifically apply these principles to a practical counseling situation in which a church member has confessed to an immoral affair. I'll try to show how a Christian should come along side his brother and lead him to Biblical repentance while leading him away from the dangers of penance. This way, we can see what it would look like for us to practically live out these Biblical principles in the context of the body of Christ. Examining this hypothetical case study will also demonstrate how church leaders might evaluate the genuineness of a sinning member's repentance.

Finally, I'll conclude the series by presenting how my own study of the doctrine of repentance has affected me personally in my walk with Christ, and how I hope it will have affected you who undertake to study it with me. May God grant that this be a fruitful and beneficial endeavor, and that it serve to raise our affections high toward Him as we look into the wonderful things He's revealed in His glorious Word.

Satisfy us with Yourself, O God, as we carefully study the Word you have given us in order to see the beauty of Your manifold perfections with ever-increasing precision and clarity! And as we behold that glory, grant that we would become transformed into the very image of Your Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren and come to have the preeminence in everything, and that You might be honored above all things!

Amen.

Biblical Repentance: Introduction

1. Exegesis
1.1. Nacham: Biblical Repentance Involves the Emotions
1.2. Shuv: The Heart's Obedient Turn from Sin to God
1.3. Metanoeo: A Fundamental Change of the Whole Man

2. Discussion
2.1. Summary and Discussion: Intellectual, Emotional, Volitional
2.2. Repentance for the Christian

3. Application
3.1. Repentance vs. Penance
3.2. Counsel to a Sinning Brother
3.3. Homework for Sinning Brother
3.4. The Effect on My Personal Walk with Christ