Holy Conversation

The word ‘conversation’ used to refer to all of life. Paul’s conversation in times past as it is in the King James version, refers to how he lived not just to how he spoke. Today we usually confine the word to exchanges of speech. In the course of a day we may have several conversations with several different people. There can be few of us who often go all day without speaking to someone, even if only by telephone. How holy are our conversations? Whatever Christians do they should do it in Jesus’s name and for God’s glory. That includes how we speak to others.

The importance of holy conversation

The Bible brings out the importance of holy conversation in a number of places. Its importance is often underlined. For example, in the Old Testament, family conversation is to include talk of God’s Law. Such conversation is not to be confined to holy places or holy feasts but to be part of everyday conversation, at home, out walking, in the morning, in the evening (Deuteronomy 6:6, 11:9). This is reflected in the psalms where the psalmist wants all who fear God to listen to him tell what God has done for him (66:16) and states how keen he is to pass on God’s Word to the next generation (71, 78).

In the New Testament a key text is Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt .... When the believer speaks there ought to be something of the grace of God in it. It should be thoughtful and kind, uncomplaining and thankful, acknowledging God and pointing to Christ. Further, there should be salt in it. Salt is a preservative. When a Christian is present, the conversation should not deteriorate into what corrupts but should come alive with what will do others good. Sometimes rebuke or pleading will be involved. As all Old Testament sacrifices were to be seasoned with salt, so all New Testament conversation should be preserved from every corrupting influence.

More generally, James has a great deal to say about the importance and influence of the tongue. Its influence for good or evil is out of all proportion to size. What havoc it can wreak if not strictly controlled. How confusing when it gushes fresh water one moment and salt the next. What harm there is in idle gossip, malicious slander, self-exalting boasts, harsh words, deliberate deception and empty nonsense. Remember, at the judgment we will have to give an account of every idle word.

More indirectly, we can gauge the importance of holy conversation by considering the power for good it can be, under God. We have already mentioned how important it is for keeping the faith alive in families. It is also important in telling others of the good news of Christ. Peter reminds us of the importance of always being ready with an answer for those who question us about our hope. Several Proverbs are apposite, The lips of the righteous nourish many; those of the wise spread knowledge and promote instruction; pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones; as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another (15:4, 7; 16:23, 24; 25:11; 27:17). It is by means of holy conversation that fellow believers are encouraged (Hebrews 10:25), those young in the faith are instructed and unbelievers are drawn to Christ. Think of the impact some conversations may have had on you, especially with older believers. Remember how the conversation of those godly women long ago in Bedford made such an impression on the then unconverted John Bunyan.

 

The improvement of holy conversation

Given the importance of holy conversation, it is clearly a matter to which we need to give serious attention. What can we do to improve our conversation?

• Get your heart right. There can be no question that the priority must be our hearts. Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). We must let Christ’s Word dwell in us richly. It is no wonder that our conversation is dull and lifeless when we do not store our hearts with Christ’s Word.
• Be careful what you say and how much you say. The Proverbs say A man of knowledge uses words with restraint; when words are many, sin is not absent (10:19, 17:27). The fool multiplies words says Ecclesiastes 10:19. As a rule we should be slow to speak, though that must not become an excuse for cowardice or laziness.
• Be determined to do others good. Ephesians 5:4 rules out obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking of course. In 4:29 Paul had warned against any unwholesome talk. Rather, speak what will build others up and do them good.
• Make conversation a matter of prayer. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight (Psalm 19:14). At the start of the day and as we begin to speak to others we should pray for God’s help and wisdom.
• Think through the sorts of thing that you might say in a given situation. 1 Peter 3:15 talks about being prepared to give an answer. Christian wisdom demands that we think through approximately how we are going to present the Christian faith to the unbeliever and surely too how we can best edify our fellow believer.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

Nonconformists and 1662

I grew up on a housing estate in South Wales. When I was five years old, there was hardly a building on the estate very much older than I was. One hundred yards round the corner from my door, however, was a magnificent and much older nonconformist chapel with its own graveyard.
The chapel was built in 1836, the work having begun in 1815. To my young eyes the chapel looked something like an alien spaceship landed in the middle of our modern world. That is where I first heard about Jesus Christ and faith in him, and became a Christian, a Baptist and a nonconformist.
Since those days I must have worshipped in a hundred or more such chapels and, for the last 28 years or so, I have preached regularly in a nonconformist chapel in my role as pastor of a nonconformist church (rather less attractive and distinct, it was built in 1870). 

Further, a large chunk of my reading and study has been in the nonconformist milieu. I have been immersed in nonconformity all my life, and my debt to the movement, under God, is incalculable. Such things are also, no doubt, true of many who read Evangelical Times.

Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon
The writer Anthony Burgess once wrote: 'It's always good to remember where you come from and celebrate it. To remember where you come from is part of where you're going'.

The beginnings of nonconformity are something that nonconformists or dissenters today ought to be familiar with. Surely it is right for us to remember the Great Ejection of 1662, which marks the beginning of nonconformity. Iain Murray has called it a 'spiritual watershed which divides two eras of our religious history'.

Back in 1962, Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, giving the annual lecture of the Evangelical Library in London, argued for doing so on the basis that practically all that is good in evangelicalism finds its roots in the Puritanism that was so fiercely persecuted in the Ejection and oppression that followed.

He also added that 'the very greatness of the men themselves as men of God demands our attention'. This echoes the view of C. H. Spurgeon who, preaching on Samson in 1858, said, 'those great preachers whose names we remember, were men who counted nothing their own. 

'They were driven out from their benefices, because they could not conform to the Established Church, and they gave up all they had willingly to the Lord. They were hunted from place to place ... they wandered here and there to preach the gospel to a few poor sheep, being fully given up to their Lord.

'Those were foul times; but they promised they would walk the road fair or foul, and they did walk it knee-deep in mud; and they would have walked it if it had been knee-deep in blood too'.

Those who were ejected in 1662 suffered as they did as a result of their loyalty to conscience. In this they are a tremendous example to all believers, nonconformist or not. However, nonconformists today should especially be aware of their example.

Christian churches existed outside the national church in England before 1662, but it was only when large numbers of Puritans from within the established church 'threw in their lot with the despised sectaries' that nonconformity or dissent, as it was to become, became a force to be reckoned with.

J. C. Ryle
As for those who today are outside nonconformity, it would be good for them to ponder the assessment made in the nineteenth century by Bishop J. C. Ryle.

He wrote of the Great Ejection, from an Anglican point of view, as miserable, disgraceful and suicidal. 'A more impolitic and disgraceful deed never disfigured the annals of a Protestant church', he wrote. It did 'an injury to the cause of true religion in England, which will probably never be repaired'.

He felt, therefore, that we should all 'know something about the subject, because it serves to throw immense light on the history of our unhappy religious divisions in this country'.

Basic facts

The basic facts are that in 1662 the Act of Uniformity was passed. The main event occurred on St Bartholomew's Day, 24 August 1662, when about 2000 ministers and others in the pay of the national church in England and Wales were silenced or ejected from their livings, for failing to conform to and dissenting from what the Church of England required.

What was required, among other things, was that they use the newly published Prayer Book. The 1662 Prayer Book has many admirable qualities, but there is much to object to and this renewed policy of vigorously enforcing its use was too much for many. This was especially the case as they had ceased using it over the decade of interregnum after the death of Charles I.

The Prayer Book was not the only concern (nonconformists objected, for example, to the requirement for re-ordination of ministers by a bishop where that had not happened before), but it proved to be the catalyst for their objections and fears.

Conscience
The Bible speaks about the conscience often enough, but it is a rather neglected subject among evangelicals today. The 1662 men were those who knew that they had a conscience and were willing to act upon it with courage when necessary.

The story is told of how someone once said to Oliver Heywood, 'Ah, Mr Heywood, we should gladly have you preach still in our church'.

He replied: 'Yes, I would as gladly preach as you can desire it, if I could do it with a safe conscience'.

The man honestly replied: 'Oh, sir, many nowadays make a great gash in their consciences. Cannot you make a little nick in yours?' Heywood clearly could not. Oh for men and women like him today!

Tradition

Further, what decides us, as far as truth is concerned? Do we say that if we were born into a certain church, Anglican or Baptist, say, that we simply remain within it 'come hell or high water'?

Are we free to follow a certain tradition, simply because it is to us an attractive one or gives certain advantages? Or is it truth that really matters? In Dr Lloyd-Jones' words: 'Am I to be influenced primarily by the fact that I happen to have been brought up in a certain denomination, or am I to be influenced primarily by the teaching of the Word of God?'

Integrity

What about mental reservations or giving my own private interpretation to articles or confessions of faith that I am required to subscribe to?

'Whatever may be said against them', says Lloyd-Jones again, 'the Puritans were honest men. They could not prevaricate; they could not indulge in mental reservations'. What about us?

'In it to win it'

The Puritans tried for more than 100 years to work within the Church of England. In 1662 the majority of them felt compelled to say enough is enough, and so they were ejected.

To quote Lloyd-Jones yet again: 'Their story compels all who hold their evangelical views to face this question. When do we come to the position of 1662? At what point do we feel that we are compromising the truth and violating conscience?'

The Anglican church of today is undoubtedly very different to what it was in 1662, though not all things have changed. Anyone who chooses to work within it ought to be aware of its history.

This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

Reading C S Lewis

Back in my salad days when I was green in judgement, some 20 or more years ago, I remember telling a congregation, by way of application, not to bother to read anything by C. S. Lewis.

I did not say he was of the devil or not a Christian, as some would maintain, but I thought there were better things to read. I remember a young man challenging this statement, which I defended then but would now want to nuance quite a bit.

Like all generalisations, including this one, it was inaccurate. But what prompted such a swingeing generalisation?

I had read some C. S. Lewis myself and had become concerned. Someone had given me The great divorce as a present, and its unbiblical idea that there was a way out of hell, and other aspects of the book, perturbed me.

I had probably decoded errors lurking in the pages of the Narnia tales too. I had never read Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ statement, quoted in Christianity today, at the time of Lewis’s death, saying that he ‘had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement’, but would have picked it up from others who had.

Doctrinal error

A whole catalogue of doctrinal errors have, unsurprisingly, been laid at Lewis’s door over the years.

He appears not to have accepted the infallibility of Scripture (in a letter, he wrote, ‘The total result is not the Word of God, in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history’); total depravity (he suggests in The problem of pain that the doctrine may ‘turn Christianity into a form of devil worship’); or justification by faith (Roman Catholic biographer Joseph Pearce points out that Lewis believed the sacraments are vital in Christianity — ‘Immediately, therefore, Lewis is excluding the Protestant doctrine of sola fide from the "merely Christian"’).

On the atonement, he says in Mere Christianity, ‘The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter’.

It appears that he believed in inclusionism (‘There are people in other religions who … belong to Christ without knowing it’; see Mere Christianity), in purgatory (‘I believe in purgatory. Mind you, the Reformers had good reason for throwing doubt on the Romish doctrine’; see Letters to Malcolm) and in praying for the dead (‘Of course I pray for the dead’; Letters to Malcolm again). Even if only some of the charges are fully justified, it should give us pause.

So, in this month, the 50th anniversary of Lewis’s death, and a time when enthusiasm for Lewis among evangelicals has never been greater, what should we think of him? Should we read his books?

Prolific writer

Well, first let’s remember that he wrote many books. Over 50 books are currently available with his name on the spine, some being posthumous compilations. There are also three compilations of his letters, which are of biographical interest and often serve to clarify his views at certain points.

The books can be divided, more or less, into three broad categories. First, there are about 14 works of literary criticism and similar academic studies (e.g. The allegory of love, The discarded image). As time goes by, these scholarly works inevitably become more and more dated, but those who are studying in the field of literature or allied fields may well want to read those works. His Studies in words is a fascinating piece

Then there are about 20 works of a more imaginative sort. These can be subdivided into the seven Narnia books, written for children; his four science fiction novels (the trilogy Out of the silent planet, Perelandra (a.k.a. Voyage to Venus), That hideous strength and the unfinished The dark tower; and his poetry (two of these books written while still an atheist).

Narnia

The Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and are available in 47 languages. Some of the stories have been made into successful films.

Early on, Lewis wrote rather coyly that: ‘Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I’d write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out "allegories" to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn’t write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn’t anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.'

However, in 1961 he was quite upfront in saying that: The magician’s nephew tells of the Creation and how evil entered Narnia; The Lion, etc, the crucifixion and resurrection; Prince Caspian, restoration of the true religion after corruption; The horse and his boy the calling and conversion of a heathen; The voyage of the dawn treader, the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep); The silver chair, the continuing war with the powers of darkness; The last battle, the coming of the antichrist (the ape), the end of the world and the last judgement.

A great deal of enjoyment can be had from the Narnia books and the science fiction — even more overt in its Christianity. They are well written stories that appeal to a wide variety of people.

Insights

They also provide flashes of useful theological insight. For example, when the children ask if Aslan is safe, Mr Beaver says: ‘Safe? … Don’t you hear what Mrs Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.' What we must not fall into, is drawing our theology from these stories. One other piece of fiction of a more theological bent is The Screwtape letters, and its less well known follow-up, Screwtape proposes a toast.

These books are written in a subtle way, apparently revealing how devils see things. Again, there are brilliant moments. Screwtape writes to his nephew and junior: ‘Indeed the safest road to hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts’, and: ‘It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.'

Rather forgotten is The pilgrim’s regress, which Lewis later regretted having written. Jim Packer wrote that when he was newly converted, in 1945, ‘the student who was discipling me lent me The pilgrim’s regress. This gave me both a full-colour map of the Western intellectual world, as it had been in 1932 and still pretty much was 13 years later, and also a very deep delight in knowing that I knew God beyond anything I had felt before. The vivid glow of Lewis’s scenic and dramatic imagination, as deployed in the story, had started to grab me. Regress, Lewis’s first literary effort as a Christian, is still for me the freshest and liveliest of all his books, and I re-read it more often than any of the others.'

Care needed

That leaves some 17 more biblical, theological and philosophically related works. These include The problem of pain, The case for Christianity, Miracles, Mere Christianity, Letters to Malcolm, God in the dock and the autobiographical Surprised by joy. Here one has to be particularly careful. Peter Barnes has noted that: ‘Lewis never regarded himself as a theologian; his strengths lay in his wonderful command of prose and in his clarity of thought.'

Sadly, too many people have turned to Lewis for their theology, to their detriment and often to that of others. In a recent book criticising certain aspects of Tim Keller’s teaching, the influence of C. S. Lewis’s bad theology has been noted.

What a warning that is to us all, that, while we would be foolish to deny Lewis’s wonderful skills as a thinker and writer, we would be equally unwise to suppose he is an unerring theologian. Like all men, his feet are of clay.

 

Holy Ghost Revival

In Acts 19 we read of a group of Ephesians who had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit. When reading that verse in public one Church of England minister was heard to say that it was apparently also true, for the most part in most of the Anglican churches of his day. A W Tozer of the Christian and Missionary Alliance similarly remarked that if the Holy Spirit was withdrawn today most of what goes on in the name of Christianity would probably continue unaltered tomorrow. We live in the age of the Spirit but for many professing Christians it makes little difference to their every day lives. 

From time to time sincere Christians have woken up to this great neglect of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost and have reacted by seeking to draw attention to him in various ways. Now the Spirit's role is in fact not to draw attention to himself but to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus says in John 15:26 When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 

I believe in the Holy Spirit

Given this fact it is important that, in the right sense, we can honestly say ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit’. This is what C H Spurgeon used to say to himself as he ascended the stairs of the pulpit of the Metroploitan Tabernacle pulpit. By that he did not mean 'I have neither prepared a message nor prepared myself for this moment but I believe God can do something anyway'. Rather, he meant that having prepared himself to preach and having prepared his message to be preached, he wanted to rely for conversions and for making an impact on Christians on neither of those things or both but only on the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven.

In the 18th century John Newton used to recommend young ministers to prepare their messages as if there was no Holy Spirit and then to preach them as if all depended on nothing but the Holy Spirit. In this way he sought to stress the paradox revealed in Scripture that, on the one hand, exalts the teaching that God is sovereign and yet at the same time insists on human responsibility.

There is no way that we can logically reconcile these two clear biblical doctrines. Abraham Kuyper used to say that if we find a way to reconcile the two then we have misunderstood. Humanly speaking they truly do seem antithetical. They find their resolution ultimately only in the mind of God.

Practically

B B Warfield called John Calvin ‘The theologian of the Holy Spirit’ because of the careful and thorough way Calvin set out the doctrine of the Spirit for the first time. Good Calvinists should have a clear theology of the Spirit in their heads. In practical terms, however, how are we to truly believe in the Spirit and honour him as we should yet give proper weight to the important doctrine of human responsibility?

Perhaps something along the lines of John Newton’s advice will serve us best. If we truly honour the Holy Spirit we will certainly notice references to him as we read the Scriptures, his inspired Word. We will be conscious of the need of his help when we come to pray. We will want to do nothing to make him grieved with us or to quench his fire in others. We will long to know him at work in conversion and sanctification; in illuminating his Word and guiding his people into truth; in restoring and renewing his people. On the other hand, we will also see the need to work hard at winning people to Christ; at seeking to grow in grace; at maintaining Christian unity; to know God’s will and live to his glory. Belief in the Holy Ghost should not lead to some sort of spiritual inertia but to a tremendous confidence in God that he is with us, strengthening and helping and nourishing and using us to his praise, as we live for him. The genuine fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc (Galatians 5:22).

Anointed

There are many examples of men in Scripture who were filled with the Spirit but the greatest example of such a man is the Lord Jesus himself for he was filled with the Spirit without measure. His very title Christ or Messiah means ‘Anointed one’. He was anointed not merely with oil but with the Spirit himself that oil symbolises. The Spirit of God was upon him enabling him to do what he did. If we are Christians we too have an anointing. As C S Lewis once put it, we are little Christs. We will then look for the leading of the Spirit, for his guidance and help and power and blessing, as we endeavour to live lives that reflect the patterns laid down for us by the Saviour. That is what keeping in step with Spirit is all about.

Never forget the Holy Spirit – not by talking about him or promoting the mere name but by actively seeking to keep in step with him in all that he does.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine.

Carey the Plodder

It is often forgotten that William Carey, sometimes referred to as the father of the modem missionary movement, was a Baptist and a Calvinist. His life demonstrates total commitment to the task to which he was called - he was consumed in the service of the gospel, making known the Saviour of sinners to a people fast-bound in the grip of false religion, superstition and ignorance. Pushing aside the arguments of convenience and indifference which mitigated against the taking of the gospel to the heathen of India, he is said to have plodded in the service of Christ.

'Whatever he began, he finished. Difficulties never discouraged him,’ said his sister. He was ‘determined never to give up a particle of anything on which his mind was set .... He was neither diverted by allurements nor driven from its search by ridicule or threats,’ noted his brother. This is how those closest to him remembered William Carey.
He was not, of course, a superman, and there were times when Carey did become discouraged. However, he never gave up. In a famous statement he wrote of himself, ‘I can plod. That is my only genius. I can persevere in any definite pursuit. To this I owe everything.’ As his fellow-labourer J C Marshman pointed out, ‘it was the plodding of a genius’, but it was plodding nevertheless.

We may never emulate Carey’s genius, but we ought to emulate his tenacity. Indeed, this is the need of the hour. There are enough shooting stars. A steep climb, a burst of glory, and then they fizzle out. Rather, we need slow burners who will faithfully shine ever brighter until that perfect day. The art of plodding is exemplified in Carey’s life in many ways. We will highlight some of them.

Plodding to Christ
The teenage Carey, an Anglican, first heard the gospel through fellow-cobbler John Warr. Many and long were the conversations they had on spiritual things, and Carey put up strong opposition to the truth at first. Warr however was, in Carey’s words, importunate with me, lending me books, which gradually wrought a change in my thinking.’ He began to attend Independent meetings and increasingly came under the conviction of sin. It was his first attempt to pass off a counterfeit shilling that became the catalyst for his eventual conversion aged seventeen.
In an instant age, we expect instant conversions, but these are rare and often prove untrue. More likely and more lasting is ‘plodding’ to Christ. Like Warr, we must be persistent and faithful witnesses. Even unpromising material may prove tractable in the end and come to expect great things from God and attempt great things for Him. We also need to encourage seekers to search for Christ, to plod on until they find Him.

Plodding to clearer views of the truthOnce converted, it was a little while before Carey was willing to take the radical step of throwing in his lot with the despised Nonconformists. It was longer, again, before he became a Baptist. It was a Paedobaptist sermon that drove him to the New Testament. After a typically thorough study of the subject, including consultations with Robert Hall, Carey came to the truth and was baptised at Northampton by Ryland in October 1783.
Superficial thinking is everywhere today, and many lack conviction on doctrinal matters. The question of baptism, especially, has been down-played in some quarters. We must forsake woolly thinking and plod on to ever clearer views of the truth, whatever our roots and whatever conclusions we draw about baptism or similar subjects.

Plodding to share his missionary vision

The story of Carey’s valiant efforts to share his convictions regarding the plight of the heathen is fairly well known. It is difficult to appreciate, at this distance in time, what a task it was to share this vision. By 1788, he had already attempted to write a pamphlet setting out his arguments for bringing the gospel to the heathen. Andrew Fuller remembered how Carey’s ‘heart burned incessantly with desire for the salvation of the heathen’. However, Carey felt incompetent to finish the pamphlet and had no way of getting it published, anyway. He unsuccessfully tried to persuade other ministers to write. For Fuller and others, the ‘unbeaten path’ felt ‘utterly beyond their reach’.
Eventually Carey’s Enquiry appeared in 1792. That same year, he preached his famous sermon from Isaiah 54 at the Northamptonshire Association in Nottingham. When the ministers met the next morning, Carey was determined not to let another opportunity pass. ‘Is there nothing again going to be done, sir?’ he asked, gripping Fuller’s arm. At last persistence paid off, and that day the Particular Baptist Missionary Society was formed. The following year, Carey set sail for India.
It does not take long to tell the story, but we need to appreciate the years of struggle as Carey sought to share his vision of what ought to be done. We need to picture in our minds long evenings spent poring over maps, the lives of Brainerd and Eliot, and the Scriptures themselves. Imagine Carey coming home from yet another fraternal where the burning question went undiscussed or was again rejected because of the practical difficulties.
We need men who will beaver and badger for the truth, especially when others fail to see, or are reluctant to act. It is not an easy role, and we must be certain that we really do have it right, but it is work that needs to be done, and That only plodders can do.

 

Plodding on until his first conversions
So Carey finally reached India. Were the years of plodding over? They had only just begun. Even today, every missionary knows he is in for a tough time. How much more so then. It was nearly seven years before the first convert, Krishna Pal [see pic], was baptised at the end of 1800. Sadly, many missionaries today would already have given up well before that point. It is plodders we need.
Over the years, besides a host of other work, Carey translated the Bible into Bengali, Ooriya, Hindi, Marathi and Sanskrit. How on earth did he do it all in that strength-sapping heat? Diary extracts make it clear that it was chiefly by means of the biblical principle ‘little by little’. More than that, there was the deep-rooted conviction that ‘the work to which God has set his hands will infallibly prosper.’ It is such plodders we need.
 

Plodding on despite adversity
From the time they reached India, Carey’s wife, Dorothy, was in a fragile mental state. There were also deaths (including his young son in 1794), many disappointments, a breach with the Society back home and many set-backs. Through it all he learned, in his own words, the need ‘of bearing up in the things of God against wind and tide’.
In 1812, a particularly devastating blow struck. The printing house accidentally burned down. Paper, new type, irreplaceable manuscripts - all were lost. His reaction is exemplary. ‘In one night the labours of years are consumed. How unsearchable are the divine ways ... The Lord has laid me low that I might look more simply to Him.’ That Sunday he preached from Psalm 46 on God’s right to do his will, and our duty to acquiesce. He wrote to Fuller, ‘The ground must be laboured over again, but we are not discouraged ... God has a sovereign right to dispose of us as He pleases.’ As he plodded on, the press was re-established and output increased beyond what it was before. Plodding once more proved the way to blessing. Oh for more plodders like Carey today!

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine October 1992, then Reformation Today 130, (Nov/Dec 92) and Reformation Africa South (second quarter 93). I have reason to believe it has been a help to many. It is currently on my main blog as a page and as a blogpost.

A thousand years and a day

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. Psalm 90:4

This is a verse worth pondering. Think how long a thousand years is – from before William I, say, through Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II. As far as God is concerned, says Moses, it is like a day that has just gone by.

Different perspectives

It is worth observing a thing from another angle. Fresh perspectives are good. From one angle, something looks hard, from another, easy. One vantage point makes a place seem near; another, far. Think of optical illusions like the young woman, old woman. Pride refuses to accept another perspective. Humility recognises other ways of seeing. Not all views are equally valid and we dare not deny objective truth but there are several ways to skin a cat.

Certainly, time has different perspectives. Shakespeare observed that ‘Time travels in divers paces with divers persons’, ambling with a woman waiting to be married and galloping with a thief to the gallows. Also, the older we get the faster time goes.

There are different perspectives to be had on time and life. Some say there is no God and refuse any other perspective. It is like someone getting excited about a pot of weeds and not seeing the beautiful flower garden outside.

God’s perspective

More specifically, we must recognise how different is God’s perspective on time. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For man, a thousand years is long. Think of what has happened over a millennium – 1066, the Armada, two world wars; scholasticism, the Reformation, global mission. It is interesting that although Adam’s ante-diluvian descendants lived extraordinarily long, none attained a thousand years. Today, the length of our days is 70 years - or 80, if we have the strength. Even Moses only reached 120. Perhaps someone reading this will see the next century but none of us will see the next millennium. For man, a thousand years is more than a lifetime – for God it is like a day. Some days seem longer than others, but even the longest is nothing looking back. A watch in the night is three or four hours. Night and day were once divided into three or four watches each. Watching from midnight until four may be tedious, but looking back, it is nothing.

How different God to man. How far back can you remember? Ten years; fifty? None of us remember a hundred years ago. We cannot imagine living for centuries. But for God, a thousand years is like a day. Think of the view from a skyscraper or an aeroplane. Things are different when we see them from God’s perspective too. We need to get that perspective. It is good to hear the opinions of others – but best to know how God sees it. We must consider past and future millennia in this perspective.

God’s character

How is it that a thousand years is so brief to God? The answer lies in his character.

• All time is equally present with him. We can think of the near future and the recent past easily but to think of something that might happen a thousand years hence or even a thousand years past is not easy. It seems so far off. God is not like that. He is not a creature of time but the I AM who lives in an eternal today. He is everywhere and always, filling every place and every time.
• He sees the end from the beginning. Part of what makes time long to us is ignorance. We cannot know what will happen next. Think how journeys to new places always seem longer going than coming. Time seems to pass slowly in childhood as there is little thought of the future and little idea of what may happen next. God always knows the end from the beginning.
• He sees everything in terms of eternity. As creatures of time, we tend to forget that God has no beginning or end and is unbound by time. When we compare a day with a thousand years, the latter seems an eternity. God, however, compares a thousand years with eternity, so it seems like a day. For God the last 200 years are like two days or two watches for the angels of heaven! Moses uses these terms to help us. We talk of dog or cat years. A cat aged 13 is notionally 7 X 13 years – 91! Similarly we can say, one of our years equals 365,000 of God’s. Seventy years is 25,550,000. Or think of a man for whom £1 is a lot and another for whom £1000 is nothing. Of course, these are pictures; the reality is that God is the eternal God. We need to get this divine perspective, then we will see time as we ought. We will see how brief a millennium is. Though hundreds of years passed from Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus, yet in God’s eyes it was no time at all. We will see it is so too, if we seek the divine perspective.

Lessons

• The long time with no resurrection is no reason for doubts. Psalm 90:3 speaks of men returning to dust. The Bible teaches this and the resurrection of that dust. The world may have turned six or seven thousand years or more and may turn for as many again, nevertheless the resurrection day will come. It is but a week or two, as it were, that those in their graves longest have been dead. Expect the resurrection.
• The long time without Christ returning is no reason for doubts. Peter (1 Peter 3:7) quotes scoffers saying Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. He warns, however, that as God sent the flood, so he will judge this world again by fire. He quotes Psalm 90:4 adding The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. God’s patience delays Christ’s return. As sure as this new millennium has arrived so in due time the Lord will return as and when God purposes. There is no delay. A 2000 year wait may seem long to us but not to the Lord. Meanwhile, be patient. The day of the Lord will come like a thief.
• Remember the brevity of life. Time hurtles by. As a child I remember how far off the next century seemed. Yet how quickly it has come. Soon the 22nd Century will dawn and we will all be in our graves.
• Take the long-term view. Many have written off Christianity. There is decline in Britain but that must not cloud the fact that worldwide the gospel advances and will continue to. Communism may engulf it for a season; Islam may stay longer; but truth marches on.
• Look to the eternal God. The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms (Deuteronomy 33:27). He has upheld his people for 2000 years. He will in any coming millennia. Look to him.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

God's Sheep - As safe as safe can be

The Calvinistic Baptist John Kent died in 1843. His final words, it is said, were “I am accepted”. He was confident of an abundance entrance into heaven. Years before he had written these words

What from Christ that soul can sever,

Bound by everlasting bands?

Once in him, in him for ever;

Thus the eternal covenant stands.

None shall pluck thee

From the Strength of Israel's hands.

 

Eternal security or the perseverance of the saints is a precious Reformation teaching. The Westminster Confession 17:1 expresses it like this

They, whom God has accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved. The idea is not that true believers never struggle or stumble but rather that, by God's grace, they will remain true to the end.

William Secker's Nonsuch professor puts it succinctly, “Though Christians be not kept altogether from falling, yet they are kept from falling altogether.”

 

John 10:28-30

One of many New Testament texts cited to support the doctrine is John 10:28-30. Jesus says of his sheep

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Eternal life is a gift Christ gives to his people. Once he gives it, he will not take it back. Such people never perish. No-one will ever snatch them out of Christ's hand. Moreover, the Father, who has given them to Christ and is greater than all has them in his hand too and will not let them be snatched away. Father and Son are united on this and there can be no conflict. There are a number of things in these verses then proving that God's sheep are as safe as can be.

 

The promise

Firstly, Jesus says that he gives his sheep eternal life and they shall never perish. It is a simple statement, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. All true believers have eternal life because Christ has given it to them. Notice, I give. Eternal life is not earned. It is a free gift from the Saviour. John 6:27 is similar, Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. Ephesians 2 reminds us that we are saved by faith but even faith is by grace. Salvation is all of grace.

Because they are given eternal life it must be the case that believers never perish. Jesus is emphatic – there is no possible way they can perish. Hell will not be their lot.

To whom does Christ give life? Who will never perish? Those who listen to his voice and follow him. Only they have eternal life and never perish. To listen to Christ's voice is to obey. Such people get to know what Christ says and not only believe it but act on it and become Christ's followers. Their great aim in life is to please Christ.

Such people, Jesus makes clear, positively have eternal life and, negatively, never perish. Back in verse 10 he says that he came that they may have life, and have it to the full. Eternal life is life to the full, unending life, the life spoken of in John 3:16 and 6:40. Believers have eternal life now (what John 17:3 calls to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent) and will be raised up at the end to live with God forever.

By nature, sheep tend to stray and easily fall into danger. But if a shepherd looks after them, all will be well. Earthly shepherds may lose sheep, of course, but Jesus loses none. Why? Apart from anything else, he has promised - I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

 

The hand of Jesus

The promise alone should be enough but some need reassurance. Here it is. Jesus says of his sheep no one will snatch them out of my hand. It is really a third statement saying the same thing – the sheep have eternal life; they shall not perish; no one will snatch them from Christ's hand.

At the beginning of Chapter 10, Jesus speaks of thieves and robbers, such as the Pharisees, who come to steal the sheep. They climb in somehow attempting to procure the sheep. They will not be successful. They are bound to fail.

When the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it, the sheep remain safe. Jesus is no hired hand who runs away when wolves come. No, Christ laid down his life for his sheep and will not abandon them when trouble comes. No-one can snatch a person from Christ's hand if they are his.

Here is an unbreakable three cord strand then – the believer has an incorruptible eternal life within so cannot perish. Even attempts to remove him from the Saviour's hand all fail. No one will remove, steal, carry off, drag away or snatch them out of my hand. It is partly a quiet appeal to deity. Jesus is God and so is able to hold many and loses none. Children like to play at trying to open their father's hand. While they are young they can never win, unless dad lets them. We can be sure that if we are in Christ's hand, he will never let us go. Isaac Watts put the idea in verse

 

Firm as the earth thy gospel stands,

My Lord, my hope, my trust;

If I am found in Jesus’ hands,

My soul can ne’er be lost.

His honour is engaged to save

The weakest of his sheep;

All that His heav’nly

Father gave His hands securely keep.

Nor death nor hell shall e’er remove

His favourites from his breast;

In the dear bosom of his love

They must for ever rest.

 

The hand of the Father

Surely no more can be said. Jesus promises eternal life, no perishing, none snatched from his hand. That is surely enough. But then people say silly things like “Ah, but what if I wriggle out of his hand myself?” So Jesus goes a step further. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. The greater than all could apply to the sheep rather than the Father, expressing the Father's high esteem for them but it is most likely to refer to the Father.

Christ has hold of them but as he and the Father are one it must be the case that the Father has them too. In eternity, the Father chose the elect. He chose them in Christ and gave them into his safe keeping. Therefore, it is right to say that all true believers are not only in the Son's hands but the Father's too. Jesus tells us that he and the Father are one, of course, so it inevitably follows but it adds one more layer of certainty for believers.

There is an expression “belt and braces”. Most people keep trousers up with a belt. From time to time the alternative method of braces (or suspenders if you are an American) becomes popular. One of my grandfathers always wore braces. If you have braces you do not need a belt and if you have a belt you do not need braces. But here we have belt and braces! Or think of an acrobat on a high trapeze. The acrobat is wearing a safety harness so as he tumbles through the air he cannot fall. But what if the harness fails? Look, there below is a safety net too!

Jesus himself assures believers of eternal life, of not perishing and adds that no one will snatch them out of my hand. Then he goes a step further and says no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. Under the Saviour's hand is the Father's too. Believers are as safe as safe can be. The Father is greater than all so absolutely no-one can remove them.

Writing to John Wesley in a long letter penned at the end of 1740, George Whitefield wrote of election that “this doctrine is my daily support;”. He went on to add

I should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, were I not firmly persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the world, and that now, being effectually called, he will suffer none to pluck me out of his Almighty hand.

All Christians ought to face their trials with a similar thought.

This article first appeared in the June 2016 Banner of Truth Magazine