Bible Study Tips: Applying the Neglected Passages

Up to this point most of the bible study tips have focused on things that to help with the observation or interpretation phase of study. Today I want to introduce a tip that applies primarily to the application phase.

It is sometimes difficult to apply lessons from texts that are not obviously doctrinal. Those texts, however, do provide important truths that we should pay attention to. Sections such as the “begat’s” for example, are rarely studied and if they are read at all they are skimmed quickly. We should recognize, however, that by skipping over these texts we are depriving ourselves of some of the means that the Lord has provided for our development.

Paul instructs Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV) and he reminds the believers in Rome that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4 ESV). Therefore we do not want to ignore or neglect any of the scripture.

Our example will be from the second chapter of the book of Ezra which is one of those passages that is often skimmed through. (I didn’t include the entire chapter out of copyright considerations)

            Now these were the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia. They returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town. They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: the sons of Parosh, 2,172. The sons of Shephatiah, 372. The sons of Arah, 775. The sons of Pahath-moab, namely the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,812. The sons of Elam, 1,254. The sons of Zattu, 945. The sons of Zaccai, 760. The sons of Bani, 642. The sons of Bebai, 623. The sons of Azgad, 1,222. The sons of Adonikam, 666. The sons of Bigvai, 2,056. The sons of Adin, 454. The sons of Ater, namely of Hezekiah, 98. The sons of Bezai, 323. The sons of Jorah, 112. The sons of Hashum, 223. The sons of Gibbar, 95. The sons of Bethlehem, 123. The men of Netophah, 56. The men of Anathoth, 128. The sons of Azmaveth, 42. The sons of Kiriath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, 743. The sons of Ramah and Geba, 621. [THE LIST CONTINUES TO NEARLY THE END OF THE CHAPTER]

What are we to do with a list like this? How often would we use this passage to instruct, encourage, or rebuke one another? Probably not often, but by asking a few basic questions about this passage we will see that there is valuable teaching here. First, we begin with the basic journalistic questions so we can understand the biblical passage. We then follow up with a few questions about the similarities between those in the biblical narrative and ourselves.

1. Who are these people?

We know from the text that these people are “the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia.” That is to say that they are the descendants of Jews who were taken from their land by the Babylonians. We also see that they have maintained their genealogies. They have not fully assimilated into the society of their captors but have continued to be a distinct minority with its own identity.

2. What are they doing?

They are returning to their ancestral homeland. They are gathered together to go back to Judea and if we read a bit ahead we see that they intend to rebuild the temple and reestablish the ceremonial worship of God according to the Law.

3. When is this happening?

This is happening about 70 years after their ancestors were taken into captivity. The Babylonians, who had conquered their land, had now come under the rule of the Persians. Just as promised ahead of time through the prophet Jeremiah the Persian king is allowing them to return.

4. Where is this happening?

They are moving from Mesopotamia to Judea.

5. How is this happening?

If we back up a bit in the book of Ezra we see that king Cyrus had issued a decree: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem. And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.” (Ezra 1:2-4 ESV)

6. Why is this happening?

For these kinds of texts the “why” is often one of the most important questions. In this case we find the answer back in the first chapter. “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing” (Ezra 1:1 ESV)

7. How is the condition of the people in the passage similar to our own?

In bible study the focus of this question should always be in a redemptive context. We are really asking how are these fallen people in circumstances similar to us. In this case we see that they are God’s people who were in a kingdom that was not their home and were longing to be back in their homeland. They are preparing to return.

8. What does this passage reveal about God’s character?

This passage shows at least two important things. First, it shows that God keeps His promises. These people are returning home in fulfillment of a promise that God had made. Second, it shows that God is sovereign because He worked through all the various circumstances to ensure that His prophesies would be fulfilled.

There are many other questions that could be added. Basically they would focus on two categories. First, what is similar or different about us and the people in the text? Second, what does the text reveal about God. Just with these two, however, we see that the second chapter of Ezra is in fact a doctrinal and encouraging passage.

This list of names (that most people skip) is a testimony to the trustworthiness of God, that He has the power to bring about His ends, and keeps His promises. What is more we recognize that we are also a people exiled from home in a place that is often hostile to us but have the promise of God that He will protect us and that, if faithful, we will return home to be with Him. We can be encouraged not just in an abstract sense (though that would be sufficient) but also because we have the very names as evidence that the Lord has kept similar promises in the past. Our hope is in a Lord who keeps His promises and does not abandon those who remain faithful to Him.

By taking some time to ask a few basic questions we can find relevant teaching and application in every part of the scripture, even those that seem to be rather distant from our own circumstances. It just takes a little bit of thought and a few well placed questions. As a teacher of mine used to say, “When you come across a passage that seems a bit dry you can usually make it less dry by applying a bit of perspiration.” I pray that the Lord would continue to bless you in your studies.

My Thoughts are With You

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” (James 5:16)

It is a great blessing when we go through any kind of adversity or trial that our brothers and sisters in the faith are praying for us. When a Christian says “my prayers are with you” they are letting you know that they recognize that God has the power to intercede on your behalf. They are communicating to you that you should trust God to do so. They are also demonstrating faith that God will honor His promises to hear our prayers. There is tremendous power in prayer. By praying we are appealing to the sovereign power of God to do what we recognize we cannot do.

Lately, however, I have noticed that many people these days are saying things like “my thoughts are with you” or “sending good thoughts your way”. This is one of those areas where there is a huge gap between those who have a relationship with the living God and those who do not. While I recognize that it is a polite and thoughtful thing to tell someone that you are thinking of them it does absolutely nothing to address the underlying issue. It is simply a recognition that someone feels bad that you are dealing with some kind of trial. The thoughts of others cannot change our circumstances nor can they give us the strength to endure them beyond what was already within our psychological capacity. The believer on the other hand has access to the phenomenal power of God who can either resolve the issue or provide the strength for us to grow from it.

For His own reasons God does not always heal us or deliver us from particular circumstances but He always has the power to do so. When I am going through adversity I do not want acknowledgement from others who are just as helpless as I am. I want to know that my brothers and sisters are interceding with my Father, King, and Savior who has already demonstrated His love and care for me. As a believer, if I must suffer, I do so in the knowledge that my suffering has a purpose and is itself accompanied by the benevolent guidance of God. What a privilege that is. The unbeliever is sadly without that hope. The thoughts of people, good or not, cannot change that.

Every time I hear about a person suffering some tribulation and I then hear someone say that “their thoughts are with them” I am reminded of Paul’s words in Ephesians.

“…remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12)

I then thank God that He has saved me. If you are a Christian consider using these opportunities as a way to share the hope that is within you. Tell people that you are praying for them (make sure you do it if you say you will). Some may not think it will do any good and others may even ask you not to. Most people, however, genuinely appreciate it and I have found it often opens the door for further discussion about faith down the road. Even if it doesn’t, it is an expression of your own faith.

Dawkins Spoof

If you have  ever read anything by Richard Dawkins or heard him speak then this is for you. Admittedly it is a bit sophomoric but hey it is getting late and it made me laugh. I thought I would share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HL3kfDmHL5g&noredirect=1#!

Unhelpful Answers: Jesus as Universal Pacifist

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  (Matthew 5:38-39 ESV)

There are many Christians who understand those words to mean that Christians are to passively undergo abuse regardless of the situation. How does this relate to our responsibility to protect our families and our own lives? Some teachers make a distinction between active defense (i.e. fighting back) and passive defense (i.e. locking our doors) but when we look closely at that distinction it becomes rather problematic to apply practically.

While some use this verse to support universal pacifism and see willingness to do so as a hallmark of faith we must be careful about establishing whole doctrines on single verses. I believe that closer examination will show that using this verse to support universal pacifism is inappropriate.

Jesus begins this teaching with the phrase ““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you…” Some people understand these words to mean that Jesus is giving a new teaching and that He is somehow superseding the law with a superior ethical standard. Jesus, however, makes it clear that He is not abolishing or changing the Law that was delivered through the prophets.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

(Matthew 5:17-18 ESV)

The phrase “you have heard” is not a reference to the law itself but rather to the way it was being taught. Jesus is responding to teachers who were taking the word of the law out of context and misleading people. The general issue was that the law was being taught as if it were a series of regulations that, if kept, would make people righteous in God’s sight. This was never the intention of the law (c.f. Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16) and is why Jesus says in verse 20 “…unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is making it clear that conformity to outward regulation cannot make people righteous because they are by nature sinful.

In this particular case it seems that the Pharisees were misapplying one of the penalties of the law. In the law an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was a sentencing guideline to be applied by the judicial authorities after a conviction resulting from the Jewish legal process. Its purpose was actually to protect against revenge driven sentences and ensure that punishments were proportional to the crime. The Pharisees had apparently distorted the teaching by making it a personal standard of retribution that was never intended in the law.

If we look closely at the example that Jesus gives when teaching on this we may also notice something that is often missed. Jesus specifically mentions being hit on the right cheek. This is interesting since most people are right handed. If Jesus is speaking here of being punched in the face by someone who is trying to do great bodily harm  it is much more likely for them to be struck on the left cheek. If, however, Jesus was talking about a backhanded slap then the detailed reference to the right cheek makes sense. If He is referring to a slap rather than a punch then his admonition to turn the other cheek takes on a different light.

A slap of this sort is generally not intended to cause great harm but rather is intended to humiliate. To be slapped in the face is an affront to ones honor and is a bold insult. The context where these verses appear, the fact that Jesus is addressing the personal application of a legal standard, and this insight into the type of physical aggression all point to the fact that Christ was talking about retaliation and vengeance in this passage and not about defending oneself when in great bodily danger. Rather, He is explaining that we are not to engage in the kind of tit for tat retaliatory responses that escalate into feuds. We are not to see challenges to our honor and personal slights as a reason for getting even the way the world does. It is the same point that Paul makes in his letter to the Romans:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”  (Romans 12:17-21 ESV)

In neither Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 nor Paul’s words in Romans is there any command that we do not defend ourselves from immediate danger. There is a distinction between a necessary defensive response and a vengeful one. In the book of Exodus the law governing the protection of ones home gives us interesting insight into that very distinction.

“If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”     (Exodus 22:2-3 ESV)

Notice that this law establishes for the protection of both the thief as well as the victim. The defender has a right to defend themselves and their property and yet has no right to respond vengefully. If they are startled in the dark they are able to respond as they see necessary. However; if the opportunity exists for them to identify the thief and go to the authorities they are required to do this and are not free to respond with deadly force. The ability of people to defend themselves and for restitution to be made is protected; however, they have a responsibility to assess the situation. If the circumstance was such that the case could be taken to the proper authorities (the thief can be identified) this is what should be done. The property owner did not have the right to take the life of the intruder.

The expectation that people may defend themselves from immediate and severe bodily harm is not just found in the Old Testament. Consider the instructions Jesus gave to His disciples prior to his arrest.

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”    (Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

Jesus tells His followers to sell their cloaks and purchase swords. Many commentators understand this in a spiritual rather than a literal sense but there are a few reasons to believe that He is speaking literally. First, He begins by referencing previous instructions that He had given regarding knapsacks, moneybags, and sandals. Those were literal instructions and so it seems reasonable that these are literal as well. Also, after these instructions the disciples show Him that they already have two swords and Jesus replies that “it is enough”. These were literal swords and Jesus did not correct them as He had done so many times before when they misunderstood something He had said.

Notice that the disciples already were carrying swords. We know that these swords were not used offensively so we may assume that they were carried as defensive weapons. Jesus did not rebuke them for having them but rather gives his approval by saying “it is enough”.  Much is made of His later rebuke of Peter for using his sword but that is a completely different circumstance. First, Jesus intended to go to the cross and fulfill the scriptures and secondly Peter did not use his sword for personal protection. The guards had been sent by those in authority, they were not thieves or robbers.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is clarifying the teaching of the law and is not establishing a requirement for universal pacifism. We are to trust in God and His ultimate justice in the face of personal indignities and not engage in vengeful retaliation. This does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves and our families against an illegal, direct, and immediate threat to an extent sufficient to remove the threat.

Am I Any Better?

As we read the scriptures it is often easy for us to be frustrated with the foolishness, faithlessness, and general sinfulness of the people whose stories are told there. We are tempted to cry out “what the heck are you thinking!” at the Hebrews making a golden calf as Moses is up on the mountain after they had been miraculously delivered from Egypt. We can be frustrated as time and time again the kings of Judah and Israel fail to honor God and bring punishment to their land. We want to reach out to Peter as he is denying the Lord that fateful night. It is easy for us, from our historical distance, to pass judgment upon them for their lack of faith.

Where does the confidence to judge those who have come before us come from? I want to specifically speak to those who are believers. To those who know the Lord and who depend upon Him for their salvation. To those who have a desire to glorify Him in all that they do. We have to be very careful that we do not think ourselves better than we ought when looking at the weaknesses of those bible characters. After all, we are often too blind to our own faithlessness.

To highlight this I would like to focus on the very first example of a human sinful decision from the scripture and one that we are often tempted (incorrectly I think) to wonder if we might have handled better.

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”       (Genesis 3:1-6 ESV)

We might be tempted to wonder how two people who experienced the fellowship of God and walked with Him, who had been given everything and only had a single restriction could make such a poor choice. If, however, we look carefully at the thought process behind their choice we will notice something that is both interesting and unsettling.

Notice that the sinful choice was a reasoned choice. It was not simply some kind of emotional reaction. There was a progression of thought that led to this choice and that progression involved certain basic assumptions. First, there is the assumption that God does not (or has not) revealed the truth. Satan attacks the integrity of God’s word and attempts to create doubt about what God had said. Second, God is not the sole reliable source of information about reality. Satan is giving arguments that would indicate that there are other perspectives on what is actual or real. When Adam and Eve sin they are assuming that they are not dependent solely upon God to reveal what is ultimately real and what is the actual state of affairs. Finally, the sin involved the assumption that human reason was the final arbiter of truth and action. Once they accepted that God might not have a monopoly on the truth and that there were other perspectives, they then logically moved to the conclusion that they themselves would determine which perspective they would accept and act upon.

All of this involves a rejection of God’s sovereign authority and an usurpation of that authority thus placing them above God in their own minds. What should be disturbing to us about those premises is that they are the same ones that we have a propensity to accept as well. In reality they are the starting points of anyone who disregards God’s word and thereby also His authority.

Every time we choose to sin or disobey God we are revealing a lack or weakness of faith and are accepting those same foundational premises in our thought patterns. Whenever we sin we are showing that our desire to do serve ourselves is greater than our desire to serve God. In so doing, just like Adam and Eve, we are rejecting His word, accepting into our thoughts some other view of reality, and are elevating our own reason above His as our authority.

We have one example of Adam and Eve doing this… but how often can we think of times where we have done this? We should certainly know better and yet we continue to struggle with this. We therefore have no basis for thinking that we would have done better than they did. When we look at the repeated failures of faith in the bible and see the longsuffering of God in working through all of that weakness to bring about the salvation of His people we should praise Him. Not because we are better than those people but because we are just like them and yet by His grace He has saved us. The failures of faith in the bible are there to show us the weakness of humanity and the faithfulness of God.

Once we recognize that our salvation is only through the grace of God all pride should be stamped out. After all it took Satan himself to tempt Eve but we are often led away by our own failings. Perhaps it is the case that Adam and Eve held out much longer than we would have. We would do well to avoid any spiritual hubris whatsoever. If we are to be confident then it is only in our confidence in Christ. Our only victory over sin is Christ’s victory. Our only righteousness is Christ’s righteousness. From start to finish whatever blessings come to us are all of grace. Praise God that He has saved us despite ourselves! 

Circles & Crosses

Circular arguments are usually an indication of sloppy thinking. As believers we are to be people of truth and should do our best to give honest and proper reasons for our conclusions and using fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning should be avoided. Not every situation, however, is the same. One of the areas where we are most likely to be accused of using circular logic is in our acceptance of Scripture as God’s word. A simplified exchange between a Christian and a non-Christian might go something like this:

Christian:         I believe the bible is God’s word.

Non-Christian: Why do you believe that?

Christian:         The bible claims that it is God’s word.

Non-Christian: That is circular reasoning!

Of course the non-Christian is absolutely correct, this is circular reasoning. That does not mean, however, that in this case the Christian is engaged in sloppy thinking. There is an important difference between this example and most others where circular logic would be unacceptable. The difference is that the Scripture is the authority or basis of reasoning that is the foundation of the Christian system of thought. It is, as Gordon Clark used to say, the axiom or starting point for all subsequent reasoning for believers. The old time theologians used to say that the scripture was norma normans non normata which is Latin for “the norm that norms but is not normed”. It means that the scripture establishes itself and does not rely upon anything else for its authority or legitimacy. It is the standard by which everything is judged and it is not itself judged.

Therefore within the framework of Christian faith an appeal to the truth of the bible to support the conclusion that the bible is true is an appeal to the foundational authority of Christianity itself. It is not simply an argument resulting from a logical progression but is rather a question of presuppositions. While those who reject the authority of scripture will not accept that the truth of the bible stands on its own, in fact, all systems of thought eventually must make a similar circular appeal to some unproven authority. There is no such thing as a purely objective approach to ideas.

If someone rejects the proposition that the bible is God’s word they are then forced to accept one of two alternative propositions; that the bible is not God’s word, or that the bible might not be God’s word. The first alternative suggests that the person has tested the scripture by some other authority and found it to fall short. The second alternative implies that it needs to be tested by some other authority so that a conclusion can be formed. This creates an interesting dilemma, however, because ultimately they are arguing that another authority be accepted in the place of the scripture but cannot demonstrate the superiority of that authority without appealing to it just as the Christian has done with the bible.

If the person appeals to some other alleged divine revelation such as the Koran, the mystical experience of a Buddhist monk, or the Bhagavad-Gita then they must show why their starting point is superior to that of the Christian. Of course they cannot do this without a circular appeal to their own chosen authority.

Perhaps, others would say that we need to evaluate the scriptural claim scientifically. Unfortunately this does not solve the problem because science has its own authoritative starting point. Scientific observations and judgments are built upon the authority of materialistic and empirical assumptions. Unfortunately for those who make an ultimate appeal to science, the primacy of empirical data cannot itself be demonstrated empirically so it is ultimately accepted by faith. Like the Christian and his or her bible it is an appeal to an assumed authority.

Ultimately any other historical or philosophical standard that is set up to evaluate the truth claim of the bible is elevating some other arbitrary authority above the word of God. There are plenty of other reasons to believe the teaching of the bible than its own claims about itself but it is its self-testimony (that we come to understand and believe through the enlightening work of The Spirit) that establishes it. It does not rely upon anything outside itself for its authority.

As believers we have a responsibility to think clearly and sloppy and circular logic should be avoided. Our acceptance of the bible as the true word of God, however, is not a conclusion based upon our reasoning from some other authority. When we reason backward from various conclusions to our dependence upon the truth of the bible we have arrived at the fountainhead. We cannot, and need not, go back any further. This is the foundation for all knowledge and truth. As Christians we do not have to feel intellectually inferior for our reliance on the bible. All systems choose their own starting points. We should boldly proclaim that God’s word stands in judgment over us and not us over it. We know that is true because the bible tells us so.

Spirit vs Flesh- How Can We Tell?

Every true believer has a desire to overcome the sin that is in their lives. It is part of the experience of every regenerate person to struggle against what the bible calls “the flesh”. As we grow in our understanding of God’s holiness and begin to understand the depths of our own sinfulness we become aware of the fact that we are incapable of approaching spiritual perfection while in this life. We are therefore left with a command to be holy as God is holy while recognizing that it is beyond our ability to accomplish this. When understood properly this should lead us to rely solely upon God’s grace and mercy not only for our salvation but also in order for us to have any hope of honoring Him with our lives. Both our being declared holy on the basis of what Christ has done and the actual development of the fruits of holiness in our actual lives are based upon grace.

The combination of this already/not yet perspective on holiness as a result of God’s gracious work combined with the fact that we are commanded to strive against sin can raise some troubling questions for believers. It is easy to say that we need to actively strive against sin in our lives while recognizing that we must rely upon God in order to do so. Actually applying this theological distinction in our lives can sometimes be difficult though. The tension arises from the very important question “how do we know if we are striving in the spirit or in the flesh?” How do we know if we are properly balancing the two halves of the equation of the biblical doctrine of sanctification?

If we attempt to overcome sinfulness solely through willpower or discipline we run the risk of developing a pharisaical view that sees holiness as conformity to a legalistic standard that governs outward acts. The danger here is that we begin to think that it is our own will and self-effort that makes us holy. On the other extreme, however, is the equally dangerous view that we should not actively strive against the sin in our lives and that we should remain passive, simply allowing (and waiting) for God to work. One of the primary dangers of this type of quietist approach is that it drastically underestimates the power of sin and can leave the believer in a shell shocked doubt. This doubt often leads to the conclusion that they did not have sufficient faith to “allow” God to bring about victory. Both of these extremes are a deviation from the biblical teaching on how the believer is changed.

The bible teaches that we must pursue holiness and that we are to actively tend to the means of grace provided to us for that end (bible study, prayer, etc.). The scripture also teaches that it is God who is working in us to transform us into the likeness of our savior Jesus Christ. Although justification is an instantaneous monergistic act our sanctification is a process that involves the cooperation of the regenerate person with the work of God in their life. Although we are sanctified wholly by grace, through that grace we are made alive and active by the spirit so that we may participate in the battle against our sinful nature. As John Calvin famously remarked, “we are justified by faith alone but the faith that justifies is never alone”.  John Murray explains further saying, “God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Neither is the relation strictly one of co-operation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction or coordination of both produced the required result. God works in us and we also work. But the relation is that because God works we work.”

The question remains, however, how we who know that we need to actively work against sin as well as depend upon the work of Christ in us in order for this to happen evaluate ourselves to ensure that we are not falling into one of the dangerous extremes described above?

First, it is clear that we must make conscious attempts to mortify the sin in our lives. We cannot assume a passive role in our spiritual development. If, however, we are actively pursuing holiness how can we be sure that we are not falling into a prideful pharisaic self-delusion? How can we tell if the disciplines we are pursuing are the result of our cooperation with the Sprit of God in us or simply our own fleshly pursuit?

I do not know that there is a single all encompassing perfect answer. I do think, however, that there are some important indicators that we can look at. First, we must evaluate the means that we are employing to bring about the changes. If we are using something other than the means that are emphasized in the scripture then we might be in dangerous territory. Our culture (including the Christian culture) is saturated with psychological and philosophical approaches to self-improvement that masquerade as Christian though they are not. The bible focuses on bible study, fellowship, worship, prayer, and sacrificial service as the marks and means of spiritual maturity so those would be what we would expect to characterize the life of one who is being transformed by the spirit.

It is, of course, possible for a person to engage in these activities as a means of prideful self-sanctification as well. This is why I think that an evaluation of our private prayer life is perhaps one of the most important indicators of our spiritual condition. Prayer is fundamentally an expression of dependence upon God. A self righteous person may pray often but the emphasis in their prayer would tend to be on being seen or known to be praying. People who are relying upon God rather than themselves have a private prayer life characterized by sincere and honest prayer. If we want to have a good evaluation of our spiritual lives we would do well to examine our private prayers in light of the scripture. How often do we pray?  How do we pray? What do we pray for? How do our prayers compare to the prayers of the faithful that are recorded in the bible? Do they reflect a character of dependence?

The bible tells us that we are to fight the good fight while relying upon the power of God to bring victory. Within each of us is a tendency to drift from the biblical balance and either try to work out our own holiness or remain passive, neglecting the exhortations and means provided to us. We must pray and study and be ever vigilant about our walk remembering Paul’s words to the Philippians.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

(Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)

And so we must work with the knowledge that we work because God works. We can tell if indeed God is working by the fruit in our lives. Not just outward works, but the spiritual fruit that accompanies a changed life.