Special Revelation, Christian Knowledge, and Children's Sunday School

After considering a number of possible curriculums for Sunday school, I see two kinds.

(a) Curriculum in which the student first learns of the world through personal, direct experience and, then, secondarily, turns to the Bible to understand the biblical message;

(b) Or curriculum in which the student first learns from the Bible and, then, secondarily, turns to the world to understand the phenomena of our world.

Here are my thoughts on the difference between these two kinds of curriculum.

The former kind makes personal experience the means by which we know and evaluate reality, including our knowledge of God and the Bible; the latter makes the Bible the means by which we know and evaluate reality, including our knowledge of the world. The former begins with personal experience and uses the wisdom gained from an examination of the world as the lens through which the student understands and evaluates the Bible; the latter begins with Bible and uses the Bible as the lens through which the student understands and evaluates the world. One is based on a worldly standard; the other is based on a biblical standard. The two approaches may be superficially similar, but they are radically different. The first type of curriculum is strongly influenced by secular models of education. For obvious reasons, this may be a logical approach for secular schools; it is, however, an absurd approach for church Sunday schools. It begs the question: why should a church do Sunday school if the Sunday school is merely an extension of the secular school? Why not send kids to secular school on Sunday morning or teach a course on religion as part of the regular weekly schedule? In other words, is church Sunday school distinctly different from secular school?

The answer is yes. One major problem with adopting a secular model of education for the church Sunday school concerns the way the secular system views the Bible. In secular systems of education, the Bible is not regarded as the primary source of knowledge. Thus, revealed knowledge is absent or almost absent as a subject to be studied with any amount of seriousness. But the entire system of Christian education presupposes the primacy of the revealed word of God. The Bible is the revelation of God and as such the Bible is the fountain which both teacher and student are to come to so that they may be given knowledge and wisdom. Not only does the Bible teach us about God, but the knowledge of God that is revealed in the Bible is the basis of all other knowledge. This is not a small point; it’s an absolutely massive one. In this light, we are able to see how wide the gulf is between secular and sacred systems of education.

This would be a good time to define revelation. Revelation ‘means intrinsically the disclosure of what was previously unknown.’ Hendrikus Berkof says, ‘Christian theology teaches that we have access to God’s nature and purposes only through God’s willful deeds of revelation, of which Jesus Christ is the center.’ One of the great statements of Christian faith explains the primacy of the revelation of Scripture in Christian education:

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 1:19–20, Ps. 19:1–3, Rom. 1:32, Rom. 2:1)yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. (1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13–14) Therefore it pleased the LORD, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; (Heb. 1:1) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Prov. 22:19–21, Luke 1:3–4, Rom. 15:4, Matt. 4:4,7,10, Isa. 8:19–20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Heb. 1:1–2)

As The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, the Holy Scripture is most necessary and is sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and his will, which is necessary to salvation. Paul wrote, ‘For God who said, “Let shine out of darkness” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2 Corinthians 4.6). That knowledge is recorded in the everlasting word of Scripture and is ‘profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3.16).

The approach to education that starts and is founded upon the revealed knowledge of the Old and New Testament is so crucial to Christian education that it warrants me taking the time to present the case in some detail.

Since the wisdom literature of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes) contains the most material on education, it's appropriate to begin this all-too-brief study of Christian education by considering the claims of biblical wisdom literature. Of all the books in biblical wisdom literature, Proverbs probably has the most to say about knowledge—what it is, where it originates, and how to acquire it. Indeed, the book of Proverbs begins with this over-arching statement concerning how knowledge is acquired: 'Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge...' The same statement recurs throughout the body of literature (Proverbs 1.7; 9.10; Job 28.28, and Psalm 111.10) indicating that the statement is the normative idea within the body of biblical wisdom literature of how knowledge is acquired. Therefore, we should sit up and take note of what this normative statement is saying.

Beginning In this statement, the word 'beginning' is significant; it denotes definite priority. Knowledge starts with fear (a deep reverence) of God, not vice versa. In other words, a deep reverence for the LORD is foundational: it is primary, not secondary; it is absolute, not conditional.

Fear Fear is certainly not an attitude our world attempts to engender in the hearts of children. They are to live fearlessly, self-confidently. How does a system based on secular ideals make sense, then, of the admonishment to fear the LORD? Fear of the LORD means ‘reverence, fear, that is, a state of piety and respect toward a superior.’ This fear is explained by the term ‘mysterium tremendum,’ coined by Rudolph Otto in his classic study of the holiness of God, The Idea of the Holy. We could render the term in simpler language: ‘awful (or awesome) mystery.’ When humans encounter the true God, the LORD God Almighty, it is proper to be struck by the awe-filled mystery of Him. Scripture does not portray the LORD as tame, tranquil, or domesticated. He strikes fear in the hearts of the people who encounter Him, even those whom he dearly, tenderly loves! The deeply reverential, indeed fearful, reactions of Moses (Exodus 3.6), Isaiah (6.5), Ezekiel (1.28), and Daniel (10.15-17) confirm this truth. There is no doubt that fear of the LORD is something that is entirely foreign to modern and post-modern people, who are deeply irreligious, but it is a quintessential feature of religious man. What are we to do? The Bible states that the proper attitude to have towards the LORD is reverence and fear. If we tone down this teaching, or make it secondary, or reject it altogether, how will this effect Christian education? ‘Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…’ For further study, see R.C. Sproul’s book The Holiness of God, especially chapter three, for a clear explanation of the fear of the LORD.

Knowledge Significantly, the word 'knowledge' (Hebrew da'at) in this passage typically denotes experience-based learning—that is, knowledge gained by the senses or by experimentation. It is knowledge of a personal, experimental nature or knowledge of a technical nature. Both scientific knowledge and the practical skills of a craftsman would be included in this type of knowledge. The Hebrew word da’at appears frequently in biblical wisdom literature (more than sixty times, mostly in Proverbs). Indeed, such knowledge is often the focus of extended discussion within Proverbs. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that a primary aim of biblical wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs, is to encourage the reader to acquire experience-based knowledge.

Having said this, however, it is necessary to point out that biblical wisdom literature speaks of more types of knowledge than simply the experience-based type; it refers to moral and metaphysical knowledge, too. In fact, moral and metaphysical knowledge are far more valuable, according to the Bible as a whole, than even the experience-based knowledge applauded in Proverbs.

Nonetheless, knowledge of a personal, experimental nature and knowledge of a technical nature are valuable in the eyes of the writers of biblical wisdom literature. The significance of this point shouldn’t be lost on us as we look at Sunday school curriculum. As the normative statement makes plain, the Bible encourages learning through the senses and through experimentation. The question is not ‘Should we or should we not foster experience-based learning in our Sunday school classrooms?’ According to the Bible, we should. Rather, the key question is: Which type of knowledge should have priority?

Which should come first: experience-based knowledge or revealed knowledge? According to the biblical theory of knowledge under consideration, the answer is plain: we should begin with a deep reverence of God. That is, we should start with the revealed knowledge of God in Scripture which alone exposes us to the mysterium tremendum of the Lord. And then, with that foundation in place, we may turn with profit to an exploration of the world through direct investigation. But to reverse the priority by placing experience-based knowledge before revealed knowledge (or, in like manner, by emphasizing experience-based knowledge over Scripture) is to run counter to the essence of biblical wisdom. The full statement of Proverbs 1.7 reads:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

In this case, the ‘fool’ signifies someone who rejects God and, consequently, has no time for wisdom and instruction since wisdom and instruction are founded on fear of the LORD.

To summarize so far, Christian education, if it is to be faithful to the witness of the Word of God, must begin with Scripture by establishing the Old and the New Testaments as foundational to the curriculum we use. In such a case, the primacy of the Bible is ensured. Once the priority of Scripture has been established, then experience-based learning may proceed with gusto. But the Bible remains central even when the experience-based learning is underway.

By the way, this issue is not new. One example from history shows how long the issue has been with us. In the early 1800s, the Presbyterian Church in North America was divided between two schools of thought: the Old School and the New one. Among other things, the issue of biblical authority versus personal experience was debated. This debated impacted other issues, including the issue of epistemology (the study of knowledge). It raised such questions as: what is knowledge? How do we distinguish and evaluate various kinds of knowledge? And how do we acquire knowledge? The Old School believed that the Bible was able to answer these questions while the New School believed that personal experience was the better arbiter. Throughout the nineteenth century the debate between the two schools of thought raged. The brightest minds in Presbyterianism, and in other denominations, were engaged in this monumental intellectual struggle which was, at the same time, deeply doctrinal in nature. In the 1920s, the New School gained the upper hand. But the church was torn apart. Colleges and Universities began teaching only the approach sanctioned by the New School. Princeton, which had been a bastion of Old School thinking, became thoroughly modern. The professors of the Old School were removed; some, such as Gresham Machen, were run out. For the orthodox Christian church, it was a fiasco. It paved the way for all kinds of problems that menace much of the world-wide church today. We are witnessing the same struggle—slightly (but only slightly) modernized—in the Anglican Church and the schism that is taking place between the ‘Old School’ and the ‘New School’ of that world-wide denomination.

I mention this history because it allows us to see our own struggle to choose the right curriculum within a larger context. I am making the case for the primacy of Scripture because I know the history of the church. I know that when Scripture loses the place of priority, the church loses its moorings and begins to drift. The Presbyterian church of the last hundred years and the Anglican church of recent days both illustrate this fact vividly. This is not fear-mongering. It is common sense informed by historical knowledge of the Christian church.

In conclusion, I am recommending that we choose the curriculum for our church Sunday school which stresses the primacy of Scripture in all things and which secondarily fosters experiential learning that is rooted in fear of the LORD.

Propitiation: What's so amazing about the appeasement of God's wrath against sinners?

Recently, I said that propitiation is the gift you give to appease someone else’s anger. For instance, after forgetting the anniversary of their wedding, a husband may give his wife a lovely bouquet of flowers to propitiate her anger. Technically I was slightly off on my description since the gift a person gives to appease someone else’s anger is propitiatory, while propitiation means the act of turning away of anger by a gift or offering. Bottom line: different versions of the same reality. The Bible reveals that the holy God is angry at the unholy sinner and he could rightly punish the sinner. But on the first Good Friday, God’s holy anger was turned away from the sinner and onto his Son, who was the sacrifice of atonement—the propitiatory offering. Jesus bore the punishment sinners deserved. And God sent Jesus to atone for human sin because of love.

At the outset, it’s important to realize that ‘propitiation’ isn’t a word that Christians invented to explain the cross of Jesus; rather, it’s a word the Bible uses to explain the cross. ‘Propitiation,’ therefore, is biblical. The Greek word for propitiation, hilasterion and its derivatives, appear in both the Old Testament (in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint) and the New Testament. In other words, it’s native to the Bible, not foreign, being part of the original language of Scripture.

In order to appreciate the meaning of propitiation, we need to put on our thinking caps and look at a language that’s been collecting dust on the back shelf of human history for a very long time. This may be a stretch, but by looking at ancient Greek, we can see what the authors of the Bible—which was written in ancient Greek—meant when they wrote about propitiation.

The Greek language, like all languages, is made up of ‘word-families.’ That is, words that share the same linguistic (language) background. The word-family that denotes the idea of propitiation includes these words:

• hilasterion, a noun, meaning ‘propitiation.’
• hilaskomai, a verb, meaning, ‘show mercy.’
• hilasmos, another noun, meaning ‘a means of propitiation.’

You can see the family resemblance in each of the above words, hence the reason they are grouped into the same word-family. First, let’s consider hilasterion, which occurs twice in the New Testament:

Propitiation (original Greek: hilasterion), noun.

There are two occurrences of the Greek noun, hilasterion, in the New Testament:

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift through, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation (original Greek: hilasterion) by his blood to be received through faith (Romans 3.22-25, English Standard Version).

Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat (original Greek: hilasterion). Of these things we cannot now speak in detail (Hebrews 9.5, English Standard Version).

The first occurrence, in Romans 3.25, indicates the object of sacrifice of atonement, that is, Jesus Christ; the second one, Hebrews 9.5, indicates the place of the sacrifice atonement, that is, the mercy seat which was the lid that covered the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, we’ll turn to the verb, hilaskomai, which we usually render as ‘show mercy.’

Show mercy (original Greek: hilaskomai), verb.

There is a single occurrence of the verb, hilaskomai, in the New Testament.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation (original Greek: hilaskomai) for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2.17, English Standard Version).

The old English sage, John Owen, asserted that in both ancient Greek literature and the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) the word hilaskomai almost always meant ‘to turn away the wrath of the gods’ or, in other words, ‘to propitiate’ (see his commentary on Hebrews 2.17). This is an important point. It shows that our understanding of propitiation is based on a very wide usage of that word in the ancient world. (By the way, our Owen is named after John Owen).

The New Testament scholar, Simon Kistemaker, comments that the original word is in the present tense of the infinitive, indicating that the work of atonement is a continuing activity. God’s showing his mercy is ongoing in this age of grace.

Finally, let’s consider hilasmos.

A means of propitiating (original Greek: hilasmos), noun.

Kistemaker says, ‘This noun…describes an action performed by Jesus Christ that appeases God the Father.’ The New Testament contains two occurrences of the noun

He is the propitiation (original Greek: hilasmos) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2.2, English Standard Version).

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation (original Greek: hilasmos) for our sins (1 John 4.10, English Standard Version).

Kistemaker stresses the fact that 1 John 4.10 explains God’s motive for sending his Son as the means of propitiation: love. Love motivated God to send Jesus Christ to be the sacrifice of atonement. Here is another passage from the Bible that describes love as the motive for God sending his Son to die on the cross for our sake:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (Romans 5.6-10, English Standard Version).

Although the word ‘propitiation’ is nowhere found in the above passage, the idea of propitiation is certainly evident. For instance, the following phrases all point towards the idea of Christ appeasing the wrath of God: ‘Christ died for the ungodly’…Christ died for us’…’we have now been justified by his blood’…’we (shall) be saved by him from the wrath of God.’ The same idea also is evident in the passage below, although, again, the word ‘propitiation’ is missing:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1.19-20, English Standard Version).

The idea of propitiation is evident in the phrase, ‘making peace by the blood of his cross.’

Some translations of the Bible shy away from translating hilasterion into ‘propitiation,’ because the idea of appeasing God’s wrath is now very unpopular. So, for instance, the New International Version translates Romans 3.25 as, ‘God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement by faith in his blood…’ In the margin note, the Quest Bible gives this explanation of atonement: ‘It is the act by which the barriers of sin between God and sinful people are removed.’ Not even a hint of God’s wrath being appeased.

For more articles, essays, and spoken messages (MP3s) on the atoning sacrifice of the cross of Jesus Christ see here.

What is Justification?

Have you ever heard a Christian mention the word 'justification' and wondered, in the context of the Christian faith, what was meant? Here is an excellent article on this all-important topic. Very thorough. But stick with it, it's worth reading to the end!

Getting in Christ's Way

Michael Horton, as host of the radio talk-show The White Horse Inn, has been dissecting Christless Christianity with his like-minded Reformed friends. Read his article of the same name here. His basic contentention is that in the post-modern era, Christians are tempted either to be like the Sadducees and prioritize the inside (reason, feelings, and imagination) over the outside (doctrine, historical facts, and the Bible) or to be like the Pharisees and prioritize the outside (law and the standard of righteousness established by the law) but in a smug, self-satisfying way.

Here's a quote from Horton on one way post-modern Christians distort the gospel:

Another way we distort the proclamation of Christ in the "Pharasaic" mode is by what has sometimes been called "the assumed gospel." This is often the first stage of taking our eyes off of Christ. Even where Christ is regarded as the answer to God's just wrath, this emphasis is regarded as a point that can be left behind in the Christian life. The idea is that people "get saved" and then "become disciples." The gospel for sinners is Christ's death and resurrection; the gospel for disciples, however, is, "Get busy!" But this assumes that disciples are not sinners, too. There is not a single biblical verse that calls us to "live the gospel." By definition, the gospel is not something that we can live. It is only something that we can hear and receive. It is good news, not good advice. The good news is that, "But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the Law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe," since sinners "are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, received through faith" (Rom. 3:21-25).

Christless Christianity

Since January, Michael Horton, who teaches apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, has been hosting a fascinating series with his Reformed-minded friends on the radio talk-show, The White Horse Inn. The series, Christless Christianity, ranges over a great deal of terrain--including the bizarre phenomenon of Crossless Christianity, the even more bizarre phenomenon of Joel Osteen, and the problem of entertainment in the worship service, among other things. It's a great series that sheds light on some murky issues with bright wit and the sobering analysis of Reformed thinking.

In his letter to a number of early churches, Jude mentioned how some people within the church were pushing Christ to one side. Apparently, our Lord was standing in the way of their ability to indulge their own desires. 'For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ' (Jude 4). The interlopers regarded Christ as a spoil-sport, who had taken up far too much of their precious time. He needed to go and the sooner the better. Some scholars date the letter of Jude to around A.D 65 to 67. So, within approximately three decades, the church that Christ founded was already experiencing ambivalence about his significance. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Jesus Christ is God

When it comes to the matter of the deity of Jesus Christ most people who are unfamiliar with the Bible think there is no evidence indicating that Jesus Christ was God; nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is we have an embarrassment of riches in the form of sound textual evidence. Let’s consider the evidence from Scripture.

(a) The witness of others. The apostle Peter testifies to being an eyewitness to the majesty of Christ (2 Peter 1.16). This isn’t definitive but it is still highly suggestive. Another apostle, Matthew, equates Jesus with God when he reports Jesus as having said, ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28.19). Three persons are mentioned but only one name. That is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share the same name. The apostle John declares that the Word (Jesus) is God (John 1.1) and the apostle Thomas, when he sees the Risen Christ, declares, ‘My Lord and my God!’ (John 20.28). Then there is Paul who didn’t know Jesus while he lived but who received special revelation from Jesus after the resurrection. The Risen Christ visited Paul directly (Galatians 1.11-12). Paul’s letters contain several wonderful attestations of the deity of Christ Jesus.

(b) The witness of the miracles. Jesus Christ performs many mighty deeds which attest to his deity. Who but God is able to perform miracles on the scale and variety of Jesus Christ? In fact, the Lord says that his deeds (miracles, signs and wonders) bear witness to who he is (that is, God). Who but God can heal the infirmed, give sight to the blind, make the lame walk, feed the multitudes, calm storms, walk on water, and raise the dead? The fact that the Lord performed all these mighty deeds tells us something about him that goes far beyond the idea that he was a great teacher or a prophet. His miracles and signs and wonders testify to his deity.

(c) The witness of Jesus Christ himself. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10.30). There isn’t a trace of subordination in his statement. In fact, he unequivocally claims oneness with God. Clearly, Jesus Christ was equating himself with God. But Christ Jesus goes one better by taking upon himself the name of God; he does so when he refers to himself as ‘I AM,’ the personal name of the Lord God Almighty. Jesus Christ is referring back to the theophany in Exodus, when God reveals himself to Moses on Mount Horeb. Moses asks God, “‘What is your name?’…God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you” (Exodus 3.13-14). In that episode, God discloses his name.

Now fast forward to the days of Jesus Christ, who says of himself, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ In saying ‘I am,’ Jesus was ascribing the name of God to himself. This was not an isolated incident.

On several other occasions, Jesus used the name of God to describe himself. He said, ‘I AM the light of the world’ (John 9.5), ‘I AM the good shepherd’ (John 10.14), ‘I AM the resurrection and the life’ (John 11.25), ‘I AM the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14.6), ‘I AM the true vine (John 15.1). He was bearing witness to his deity by applying the name of God, ‘I AM,’ to himself.

(d) The witness of God the Father. On two occasions, the Father bears witness to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

(i) At the baptism of Jesus, a voice from heaven declares that Jesus is the beloved son of God and states that God is well pleased with him (Matthew 3.17; Mark 1.11; Luke 3.22). In this way, the voice confirms that Christ is the Messianic king (Psalm 2.7).

(ii) At the Transfiguration, a voice from heaven declares the Jesus is the beloved son of God and charges those who are in earshot to listen to him (Matthew 17.5; Mark 9.7; Luke 9.35). Since Moses and Elijah are present at the moment and Peter is acting deferentially to all three of them, the voice from heaven makes the point of distinguishing Jesus as supreme over Moses and Elijah. ‘Listen to him’ rather than ‘listen to them.’ The glory of Christ shines forth from his clothes (Matthew , Mark, Luke ) and his face (Luke ). Of that moment, the author of Hebrews says, ‘He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature…’ (1.3) while the Apostle Paul says that, ‘the light of the knowledge of God (shines) in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2 Corinthians 4.6).

As I’ve said, when it comes to proof that Jesus Christ is God, the Bible provides an embarrassment of riches in the form of sound textual evidence.

The Christian Walk

How do you gain maturity in your walk of faith?

The answer is complex.

(1) The essential agent is God. God, the Holy Spirit, is at work in believers sanctifying them so that they are able to produce the fruit of the Spirit. God gives them a new nature, one whose emotions, intellect, and will are inclined towards joyful obedience to God.

(2) As a result of the new nature, Christians co-operate with the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification. Only the Holy Spirit can sanctify believers; yet, they still have their part to play. Believers co-operate in various ways.

(i) We co-operate, by studying the Word of God. So, for instance, one of my favourite verses in the Pastoral Letters counsels the Christian: ‘Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything’ (2 Timothy 2.7, NASB). The Lord Jesus Christ will give understanding, through the Holy Spirit, to every believer who considers what Scripture (in this case written by Paul’s hand) says.

(ii) We also co-operate by doing good works. Our doing good works is inextricably connected with the hearing the Word. ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped to do every good work’ (2 Timothy 3.16-17). Notice two things about this passage:

First, Christians respond to the new life they have been given by allowing Scripture to shape and define them. This is a period of preparation.

Next, they do good works.

The passage from Second Timothy suggests that there is a definite sequence to the formation of a person who has been regenerated. There are two parts to the sequence.

In part one, the believer is taught by Scripture, rebuked by Scripture, corrected by Scripture, and trained in righteousness by Scripture. The activities—teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training—denote a season of cultivation of the new life that God has planted.

Part two, now that the believer has been cultivated, he or she is equipped to do the good work that all Christians were made to do. God regenerates believers, basically, so that they can do good works and, thus, give glory to God, who created them. In fact, the Bible teaches that good works is a fairly accurate indicator of whether or not a person is genuinely regenerated (Matthew 3.8, 10; 7.16-20; 12.33; 21.43, James 2.20).

This does not mean that good works save; they do not. Only the grace of God saves (Ephesians 2.8-9). We play no part in the gracious act of salvation. But, once we are saved, we have a purpose that was prepared for us long ago: to do good works. (Ephesians 2.10).

Also, it would be misleading to say these parts (preparation and doing) are clearly perceived as separate and distinct to our conscious mind. New believers may desire to do good works, but it is crucial they know from the counsel of Scripture why they are doing those good works. So many Christian do good works expecting a pat on the back. This shows a wrong motivation. The correct motivation is to glorify God. Our satisfaction comes from doing his will.