Grace to Abstain

In 1 Peter 2:11-12 Peter encourages believers, “to  abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (v. 11). Sometimes the commands New Testament authors give are easy to agree with, but difficult to follow. How do we successfully resist the strongly felt temptations that come our way?

 

It is important to note that feeling a fleshly passion is not sinful. It is sinful if you entertain the passion and give into it. But feeling the passion for fleshly fulfillment only signifies that you are in a battle. As long as you fight against it you are on the right side of the battle.  But Peter’s advice is not to suppress the desire. neither does he tell us to fight against it. His instruction is simple: abstain.

 

Paul teaches us that we have been set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness (Rom 6:18). Now as believers we have the power to resist, to abstain, to choose not to do what our enemy wants us to do. Here one of the essential principles of spiritual warfare is revealed: Do the opposite of what your enemy wants you to do. If your enemy, whether a demon or a desire, wants you to sin, do the opposite, even if that means doing nothing. Time is your ally. eventually the desire will pass and you will be victorious. But that is easier said than done.

 

All sincere believers at some point must face an enemy that seems more powerful than they are. In fact, it is not until we admit our enemy is stronger than we that we are in a place to win the battle. We must acknowledge that we are not strong enough in and of ourselves to resist temptation every time it presents itself. We need help. Thankfully, God has provided all the help we need. It is called the grace of God. God’s grace stands behind the words of 1 Pet 2:11 and in fact in all of this epistle. Peter’s concluding words summarize everything he has taught: “This is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it” (1 Pet 5:12). Peter thus acknowledges that all the righteous acts that believers do are an act of standing firm in the grace of God.

 

But many people misunderstand God’s grace and thus step out of it unwittingly. One way this happens is by thinking that grace means God does everything and we do nothing. But even when Peter refers to grace he tells us to do something; “stand firm.” How does one stand firm? By doing everything Peter has instructed us to do in his epistle. In 2:11 it means abstaining from fleshly lusts. That means if you give in to a fleshly lust, you have just stepped out of God’s grace. Sure, you can get back in again and be forgiven, but it is impossible to consciously disobey the commands of God and at the same time to be standing firm in His grace.

 

A good explanation of the grace of God is found in Phil 2:13. Paul tells us, “It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Our working to please God is something that God works into us. These kinds of works are not contrary to grace; they are the expression of grace. God not only works in us to work for Him, but he also works in us the desire to do so. Therefore, works of service that we perform that spring from the desire He put in us are not dead works, but proof of the work of grace that is in our lives.

 

Someone might argue, “If you do the work without feeling the desire, it is a work of the flesh. It would be better not to pray than to pray in the flesh.” However, to possess the desire but not perform the work is also a work of the flesh, even if that work consists of doing nothing. Not praying is just as fleshly as praying in the flesh, so if you are going to be in the flesh anyway, it is better to pray than not to pray. It is deception to think that not doing God’s will facilitates grace.

 

Not praying unless we feel the desire to sets a dangerous precedent in our lives. It teaches us to do what we desire, when Scripture tells us to do what God desires. As a result, when we are faced with temptation we will end up doing what we desire. Problem is, when we feel a fleshly passion, it is impossible to at the same time feel a desire to abstain from it. Unless we train ourselves to act contrary to our desires, we will never be successful in resisting temptation. Therefore, when deciding whether to do right or wrong, it is always better to do what is right even if you do not desire it. It is better to be labeled a legalist than to be confirmed as a sinner.

 

When fleshly desires entice you to sin, the only response that facilitates God’s grace is abstaining. There is more you can do than abstain, but it begins there. Grace draws us closer to God. You cannot draw closer to God by sinning. You draw closer to God by allowing grace to do its work, which is to work in you the desire and the ability to do God’s will. Everything in your life that promotes the will of God is the true grace of God. The flesh always works away from doing God’s will. If you want to cultivate an atmosphere of grace in your life, stand firm in God’s grace and abstain from fleshly lusts. Then the grace of God will enlarge in your life, manifesting in an increase of the desire and ability to do His will.

A Survey of Paul’s Argument in Romans 9: Part 2

In part 1 of our survey of Paul’s argument in Romans 9, we explained Paul’s teaching in verses 1-13, presenting an interpretation that makes better sense of the flow of the passage that traditional Calvinistic interpretations. Part 2 will cover the rest of the chapter.

Verses 14-18 discuss God’s hardening of Pharaoh and mercy toward Moses. The important thing to note is that the discussion of the individuals, Moses and Pharaoh are as representatives of their respective nations. But Moses does not represent contemporary Israel, but the church as the recipients of God’s mercy, while Pharaoh represents contemporary Israel, who has been hardened so that God’s glory may be revealed and his purposes performed in the earth. Paul plainly states this in Rom 11:7-10 and 11:25. Paul’s point in 9:14-18 is that Israel is hardened. It is not about Pharaoh or even Moses. That Moses willed to see God’s mercy is not the reason God showed him mercy. That is why Israel cannot claim that their desire to obtain righteousness requires God to grant them righteousness. Paul admits that Israel has such desire (9:31; 10:2), but desire or will does not come into the picture. it is God’s sovereign decision whether any generation of Israel will be an object of mercy or of judgment. This generation is the latter.

Seeing things this way, it is obvious that Paul’s argument will not be readily accepted unless he answers the logical question that ensues from declaring that God hardened Israel despite her will to pursue God (vv. 19-23). The why does God find fault? Israel is only doing what God willed for her. The terminology Paul uses in asking this rhetorical question suggests obstinacy on the part of the questioner. Paul’s response is to the attitude behind, not the substance of, the question. In rebuking the questioner for having an arrogant attitude, Paul refers to two texts in Isaiah that contain divine rebukes against Israel or her leadership for having the same kind of attitude reflected in Rom 9:19. In fact, one of the Isaiah passages refers to a pagan king as God’s anointed one (lit. “messiah”). Isaiah objected to God’s anointed one, Cyrus, sent to return the Israelites to her homeland, and God used the imagery of the potter and the clay to demonstrate that he has the right to do things this way if he wants to. In the context of Romans, Israel objects to God’s anointed one, Jesus, and Paul brilliantly uses the Isaiah text to present a near exact parallel between unbelieving Israel in Isaiah’s day and unbelieving Israel in Paul’s day. Both groups are ripe for judgment as vessels of destruction, and if God is not just to judge Paul’s contemporary Israelites, then he was not just to send Israel into exile in the 6th century B.C.

Now Paul turns to the vessels of mercy, a reference to the church, which consists of people “not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles” (v. 24). In verses 24-29 Paul uses Hosea to show the predetermined plan of God in preserving a remnant and including the Gentiles. Some object to Paul’s use of Scripture here, because when God said, “I will call them my people who were not my people,” he was referring to Israel, not Gentiles. But Paul is also referring to Israel, but a reconstituted one that includes Gentiles. If the church had replaced Israel, as supercessionism teaches, then Paul has badly misused Scripture here. But Paul believes that believing Gentiles are grafted into the tree that is Israel (see Rom 11:16-19). But Hosea’s prophecy presents a problem for Paul. Paul combines a quotation Isa 10:22-23 and Hosea 2:1 to say, “thought the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved” (Rom 9:27). But the Hosea passage is an allusion to Genesis 22:7, which says the “seed” of Abraham will be as numerous as the sand on the seashore. This refers to the true children of promise, not national Israel. How can the children of promise be as numerous as the sand on the seashore if only a remnant of Israel will be saved? Paul’s answer is that the children of promise must include more than Israelites. Thus he brilliantly finds a prophecy of the inclusion of the Gentiles within the very promise made to Abraham and his seed that formed the introduction to Paul’s exegesis in Rom 9:6-7.

The predominant theme that makes Paul’s argument hold together is the consistency with which he refers to Israel as a group, whether the nation in apostasy or the remnant of believers. This chapter is about corporate calling and, if you will, corporate hardening. But it also includes the corporate salvation of the remnant, which, combined with Gentile believers, becomes the corporate salvation of the church.

Verses 30-33 ask the pertinent question, Why? why did Israel fail to obtain righteousness, when it earnestly sought it? The answer is a blow to Calvinists: “because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works” (v. 32). The final determiner of Israel’s destiny lies not in the hands of a sovereign God, but in the unbelief of an apostate people. Paul proves earlier in the chapter (vv. 6-18) that neither works nor will can produce righteousness. That only comes by faith. Israel had works and she had the will, but she lacked faith. That is why she is lost, hardened in unbelief. That is also why it is so out of place for Piper (Justification, 53) to say, “The predestination and call of God precede justification (Rom 8:29f) and have no ground in any human act, not even faith. That is why Paul explicitly says in Rom 9:16 that God’s bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is based neither on human willing (which includes faith) nor on human running (which would include all activity).” (emphasis in original). To connect Paul’s use of “will” in 9:16 with faith as something that is not a factor in the determination of the destiny of people reflects not only a misunderstanding of Paul’s argument in Romans 9, but a gross misunderstanding of Paul’s gospel.

Conclusion
Thus Paul demonstrates that the corporate calling of the nation of Israel is the direct result of God’s sovereign will. This is reflected in God’s unconditional promises to Abraham and his seed that they will be blessed and will bless the rest of the world, as well as possess the land God gave them. As an unconditional promise, it cannot be thwarted. God’s word cannot fail: “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom 3:4). That is why Paul concludes in Rom 11:26 that all Israel will be saved, adding the punctuation mark in verse 29: ” the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” These are some of the same gifts and calling that Paul enumerated in 9:3-5. There is a distinction, however, between how God deals with his called nation and how he deals with the individuals who make constitute the people of God. The nation is called to be God’s vehicle of salvation for the world. all who are truly within that called nation are themselves saved.

But not all who are children of Abraham though Isaac and Jacob are in that nation: “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6). The individuals who constitute the remnant are not chosen unconditionally. They become part of the people of God by faith. This is as true of the descendants of Jacob as it is for the Gentiles. So there is a conditional promise within the unconditional promise. God provides a vehicle of salvation: Abraham and his seed. This vehicle is Israel, but is fulfilled finally in Christ. Christ is the embodiment of Israel and the vehicle of salvation for all who believe. God unconditionally provided the vehicle, but being included in the vehicle is conditional upon faith. All who believe are in Christ and all who are in Christ are saved. Whether any individual believes or not, there will always be a remnant; there will always be a church. That is how God unconditionally guarantees his promise without having to unconditionally guarantee the salvation of any individual. How wonderful are the promises of God! Let us thank him for his grace in drawing us to the cross so that we could be included in Christ and receive the promises and the inheritance of the saints. To him be the glory.

NSA Surveillance Policies Threaten American Freedom

In Barack Obama’s tenure as President, he has been involved in numerous actions that many claim violate the Constitution, including the Benghazi attack, the IRS scandal, and his bills to enact gun control and socialize the health care system. But perhaps the most serious attack on the Constitution comes as a result of Edward Snowden’s unauthorized release of documentation of illegal U.S. surveillance of its own citizens and European allies. These activities of the NSA represent a serious breach of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects American citizens “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” When government surveillance of its citizens was made public, Obama immediately defended the NSA’s actions, claiming through a spokesman that collecting phone and internet data has prevented many terrorist attacks from happening.

It is a fallacy to justify unconstitutional actions on the basis of the good it brings to the American people. As has often been noted, that is the very excuse every dictator has used to justify their coercive and controlling actions. That is why cybersecurity expert and author Bruce Schneier observes: “no one feels more secure in a surveillance state.” We may be more secure against radical Islamists, but in return we feel much less secure against our own government, which has the capacity to turn against us. The immediate response by the controlling powers is to claim, “We are not Hitler. We are not Stalin. We are genuinely concerned with the welfare of the people.” Aside from the fact that Germany would not have given Hitler absolute power had they realized his concern was not the welfare of the people, we are still left with the chilling question, what about your successors? Can you guarantee that those who take power in 10 or 50 years will also be genuinely concerned for the citizens, or is it possible that they will have evil, self-serving purposes and will use the precedent set by today’s well intentioned leaders to exercise tyranny over the people?

The Bill of Rights is in place for a reason. The fixedness of these amendments is due to the universality of the principles they embody. They represent core principles that represent the very rights our forefathers risked their lives to preserve. They also provide protection of the citizens from their own government to A) prevent it from going awry of these principles, and B) replace the government in case it does go awry. for these very reasons the populace must be wary and not trusting of the government when it begins to breach the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights.

With current technology the government is able to listen to phone conversations, read personal emails, and even peer into living rooms without our consent and even without our knowledge. In fact, we already know that the government is engaging in some of these activities, not just with surveillance of terrorists, but according to Snowden, also of our allies. With this technology in the 19th century, an administration sympathetic to the South could have stopped the underground railroad and arrested all the abolitionists. With this technology in the 18th century, a loyalist state could have prevented the American Revolution from taking place. Every government thinks it is fighting for a cause that is worthy. Every government thinks its actions are right and good. But not every government is correct about these assumptions. That is why they need checks and balances. That is why they must listen to the warnings of sympathetic observers, and to the will of the people. For this reason, no government is in the right when it engages in actions that may reasonably be argued to be in violation of its constitution., unless it first engages in full disclosure, letting the public know what it is doing and why. The sin of our government is not simply in engaging in acts that violate the 4th Amendment. The greater sin is in doing it without our knowledge. Perhaps our government ought to pay close attention to events happening in Egypt, where the people, who just won the right to vote in their choice of leader, recently ousted that leader when they saw him violating and rewriting their constitution.

If the American government is honorably and faithfully working to protect the rights of its citizens, then it has no reason to hide its actions from the press and the public. If it is argued that disclosure allows terrorists to cover their tracks, then that is something we will have to live with. But when the government starts snooping into the personal lives of its allies and its law-abiding citizens, at that point the entire democratic process, and with it the American dream, is in jeopardy. If the government is truly acting out of concern for the safety of its citizens, then it will go through due process before engaging in these activities. If everything is above board, then it should be done in the open, not in a dark corner. Although Snowden broke the law when he exposed the NSA’s activities, he was actually doing what the government should have already done: inform the American people of its intentions and its actions. If the NSA’s actions are truly necessary, as President Obama declares, then the people will see that and agree. If the people wrongly disagree, then they, that is, we, will pay the price for it with the shedding of our own blood. We have everything to lose; therefore, we should be trusted to make right decisions about the violation of our privacy; not because we will make the right decision, but because our own lives are at stake, and we must be the ones to decide whether or not to risk our lives for the sake of the Constitution.

People become willing to cheat the system when they no longer trust the system. I will not here try to prove that Barack Obama does not trust the democratic system in America. I think we should dig deeper than simply recognizing the socialist tendencies of some of our leaders. Ultimately, trust in our system, in our democratic process, reduces to trust in God. Systems will fail. But the American system was not founded simply on an idea that it was better than England’s. It was founded on an idea that God would use it to create the greatest nation on earth. John Adams was right when he said: “Our government was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If we only trust the system to keep terrorists at bay, then we may become terrified at the potential results, because we know our system, like every other government on earth, is flawed and limited. As a result we may try to undermine the system in order to secure our freedom. But if we trust in God, whose Word forms part of the foundation of the laws of this land, then we can stand by our laws and not seek to circumvent the system, maintaining our confidence that God will protect our freedom as long as we trust in him.

The real danger in America is not a socialist takeover of government, or the violation of constitutional amendments. The real danger is the replacement of a God-honoring government for one that is atheistic in practice, if not in philosophy. What America needs most is not to impeach the president or overturn its godless laws. What America needs is to turn to God in humble repentance. If we do this, the rest of the things America needs will follow.