Merry Christmas!!!!

Hope all is having a Merry Christmas. We got up early and did stockings in bed. Then we opened presents. My wife prepared a delicious french toast casserole that we ate after reading Luke 2:1-20. And finally, we wrapped things up by singing Angels We Have Heard on High. Now time to play!!

I wanted to leave you with a quote from Athanasius' book entitled De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. This particular paragraph stuck with me when I read it late last night before bed. It is the first paragraph of chapter two entitled, The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation.

"We saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits. As, then, the creatures whom He had created reasonable, like the Word, were in fact perishing, and such noble works were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good, to do? Was He to let corruption and death have their way with them? In that case, what was the use of having made them in the beginning? Surely it would have been better never to have created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it wold be unfitting and unworthy of Himself."

......to which I might add...... PRAISE GOD HE DID NOT LEAVE US CARRIED OFF BY CORRUPTION, BUT SENT HIS SON AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SINNERS!

It is truly a blessing to pastor at Grace Chapel. Thank you all for your tremendous gift (and gifts to our children). We love you all. You all are GIFTS to us.

Pastor Andy
Corie, Gracie, and Jackson

Grace Chapel Blog on New Covenant Theology Website

I was just informed via email of a really good website with lots of resources for New Covenant theology. Grace Chapel Blog is listed as 1 of 12 New Covenant blogs from around the world on this particular site. I just spent a few minutes skimming the site....it looks like a great resource. If you would like to skim it too, CLICK HERE.

I will also create a link to this website on the sidebar of our main page.

Some random notes.......

Click here for an article written by a staunch New Covenant theologian who argues against the wisdom of Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration. His arguments are similar to the ones I have outlined from other noted men. He also answers some of the questions I proposed in an earlier blog article.

And on a lighter note, if you are a Rolling Stones fan, then click here to read an intersting article.

Grace and Peace,
Andy

Favorite Books of '09 [For Those Who Might Care]

Any of you that keep up with the real bloggers of this world (unlike me) have noticed that many of them have recently listed their top 10 favorite books of 2009. My list will be different due to the fact that: a) I do not consider myself a great blogger, and b) do not try and read every new book that comes out each year. My philosophy has always been to try and read the classic works that still speak to us today. Therefore, I very rarely buy a book just because it is "new". I like new books because they help me stay in touch with current trends in the culture. I like older books because they help me see past cultural trends. And most of the time the past cultural trends of today are the same as yesterday. Its just that they reappear in different clothing. I just thought some people may be curious as to what I have been reading this past year, what I do all day, and what I think about. My reading list reveals this.

The following list is different in that it will include books that were not necessarily written in 2009. Rather, I have listed my favorite books that I read during the '09 year regardless of when they came into print. Some are from '09, some from 'o8, and others from the 80's (long time ago, I know)! I have also not included the commentaries that I have been reading for John and Colossians, though in all honesty, they have had the most impact upon me.

Here they are in order of most impactful ("1" being the most impactful):

10. Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal, Gary D. Long

This is an excellent, scholarly work. Based upon sound exegesis, Long argues that Christ fulfilled every part of the Old Testament Scriptures. He thereby refutes Theonomy and traditional Reformed Theology in favor of Biblical, New Covenant Theology. A sure shot in the arm for New Covenant Theology.


9. John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, Edited by Burk Parsons

This is the only biography included on my list. It is rich with essay analysis of the life of Calvin on the celebration of his 500th birthday. The essays are written by men including: Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, Phil Johnson, John MacArthur, Michal Horton, and Joel R. Beeke.


8. The Courage to be Protestant: Truth lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, David Wells

This book was written to oppose the "newer" versions of evangelicalism, which have almost taken meaning away from what the term "evangelical" means. Wells emphasizes the role that doctrine has played historically for evangelicals. It is a wake-up call to the church.

7. The Newness of the New Covenant, Blake White

The best short work on New Covenant Theology that I have read to date. White defines the fundamentals of NCT through right theology, Biblical exegesis, and clear thoughts.


6. Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, Bruce Ware

One of the clearest and practical books on the inner workings of the Trinity. I have re-read this book several times. I read it again this year as I worked through the book of Colossians and dealt with the husband and wife relations (Col. 3:18-19). Great book! Truly one of my favorite books of all time- had to include it some where on my list for '09.

5. Gospel Powered Parenting: How the Gospel Shapes and Transforms Parenting, William P. Farley

This book is about more than just parenting. It is about husband/wife relations, the church, and most importantly the Gospel. It shows that the Gospel affects even the day to day principles on how to raise children. It is an excellent work that has good questions at the end of each chapter for reflection. Would be a great Bible study for couples with kids still at home!

4. Christless Christianity, Michael Horton

Horton insightfully argues that the American church has been taken captive to the Americanized Babylonian tenets of consumerism, pragmatism, individualism, positive thinking, etc. He argues for the church to center its thoughts back upon the only important thing- the Gospel. The church is almost "Christless". I appreciate his candid remarks regarding some key prosperity gospel advocates. He shows great boldness in taking on the false teachers of today- revealing his faithfulness (unlike some preachers today).

3. The Law and Its Fulfillment, Tom Schreiner

This work is strong due to several factors. It is historical in that it traces the effect of the new perspective on Paul and shows how it has shaped various trends of Pauline theology. It is aggressively exegetical as well. Schreiner is a master of context and language. And finally, it is rooted in a theology that is overtly Christ-centered. I am sure that I will re-read this one.

2. Come to Me, Tom Wells

I was highly impacted by this book in my study of evangelism this past summer. Tom is great with words. This book teaches a robust Biblical approach on how to speak the Gospel in the power and love of the Spirit. Once again, Tom shows us that the greatest teachers of the world are those who can communicate deep concepts on a simple level.

1. The Jesus You Can't Ignore, John MacArthur

This book happens to be the latest of MacArthur's (2009). I do not think MacArthur's impact can be over estimated. Once again MacArthur captures a real picture of the Jesus of Scripture. Rather than being a pacifist, Jesus was bold (even hostile) to the religious leaders who propagated a false gospel. On the other hand, He was gentle to sinners who knew their sin well. MacArthur traces Christ's various exchanges with the religious leaders throughout His life to show us the real, bold, loving Jesus.

Special Honorable Mention: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J.I. Packer

I must admit (very relunctantly) that I had yet to read this classic work on evangelism until this past year when I was preparing for a presentation on evangelism. We owe a debt of gratitude for the Biblical philosopy of evangelism that Packer promotes in his book.

Honorable Mention: Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence, Kenneth Poppe

This book deserves some recognition. I picked it up for $4.95 on somewhat of a whim. It really has been helpful in my understanding of my wife's favorite subject in school (and my most hated)- science.

The Witness of God's World: Philosophical Arguments for God's Existence

Today we going to tread philosophical rather than Biblical waters. I do not mean by that, that we are going to ignore Scripture, defy Scripture, or operate from an anti-Scriptural worldview. But we are going to deal with philosophical rather than theological categories of thought.

We are discussing the plausibility, viability, and strength of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I have entitled this section, The Witness of God's World because we are going to make simple observations from the world we inhabit (which God created) and draw conclusions based upon those observations. Some of these philosophical observations will be rooted in scientific fact, others will be solely philosophical, and others will do more to argue against the naturalist (atheistic) worldview than argue specifically for Christian theism.

I want to make this as practical as I can. Therefore, I have chosen to frame these arguments in the form of questions. These questions (arguments) can then be used when one is given the opportunity to speak with someone who is a skeptic regarding God's existence. In addition, I hope that these arguments will also provide confidence that one's belief in Christian theism is intelligent, rational, and viable rather than silly, irrational, or antiquated.

We will deal with just the first argument today.

I. IF A PERSONAL GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THE "CAUSE AND EFFECT" NATURE OF THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN?

Classically, this type of argument would fit under the rubric of cosmological arguments for the existence of God. If you think about it, all people take for granted the cause/effect nature of the world that we inhabit.

The Argument Explained

Here is the argument in a nutshell. Our world is made up of a series of "effects". For instance, the clothes you are wearing can be considered an "effect". The food you ate this morning is an "effect". The car you drive is an "effect". And the above "effects" have a number of different "causes". The "cause", say, of your clothes was the person who made them. The "cause" of the food you ate this morning was that either you, or someone else prepared it for you. The "cause" of your car being drivable is due to the fact that a manufacturer put it together.

Let's take that last "cause" (the manufactured car) and elaborate on it a bit. I am assuming that those reading this did not build their own car (if you did kudos to you!). I am also going to assume that nobody was at the factory the moment your car was being produced by machines, engineers, and mechanics.

The question is, "If you were not present at the factory when your car was put together, then how do you know that it is put together?" The answer: because you see that it is put together and you therefore assume that it was put together in a factory. In other words, you see and experience the effect- driving a car that functions properly- and you intuitively know that there had to be a "cause" for that. And you assume this devoid of any personal eyewitness account of your car actually being put together. This is the principle of cause/effect.

So "causes" produce "effects". That much is clear. But let me extend this principle a little further. "Causes" produce "effects", but "effects" are also "causes" themselves. For example, the "cause" of you eating breakfast this morning was that it was prepared for you. But you do realize that that particular cause- say, your spouse cooking you eggs- is a "cause" while being at the same time an "effect". Your spouse making eggs is an "effect" of say, you going to the store to buy the eggs. That action of buying the eggs "caused" (in a certain sense), or provided the opportunity for your wife to cook them. Without the "cause" (buying the eggs) there would be no "effect" (cooking the eggs). And that "effect" (cooking the eggs) becomes the "cause" of the "effect" of you eating the eggs. Whew.

The Point Applied

We exist, therefore, in a world that is by nature full of the cause/effect principle. All of life in the world that we inhabit can be explained this way. Thus, we conclude from this observation that the world is by definition contingent, or dependant. If the entire world is built off of causes and effects, then it stands to reason that the world is dependant. Dependant is the best word to summarize this cause/effect cosmos. All of the parts of the world taken together depend on each other. Causes produce effects and effects are causes themselves in a seemingly never ending succession of events impossible to document exhaustively.

The Question Asked

So here is an important question, "Can this characteristically dependant world sustain itself (we could also ask whether it created itself)?" In other words, a world that by nature is dependant due to its obvious cause/effect feature operating continuously must as a whole (itself) be dependant on a greater cause. There had to be a greater Cause that started the whole operation of causes and effects.

The whole world must be the result of one "Big Cause". The world is one big effect stemming from one "Big Cause". We must ask ourselves whether or not, reasonably speaking, this world could exist in any other way than by a bigger cause.

This "Big Cause" could be called "First Cause", and it points to a Maker- Creator. And this "First Cause" must exist outside of this world because everything in this world is dependant. This First Cause is the one that causes the series of cause/effect events to take place. And if so, then the "First Cause" must be greater than all the little causes and effects.

This "First Cause" is infinitely independent, intelligent, and powerful. Thus, this "First Cause" is uncaused. He is a personal God.

Let me illustrate this way. Suppose you come to a railroad crossing and are forced to stop because a train is passing by. You might wonder how the yellow boxcar is moving. What is causing it to move? You deduce that the blue boxcar in front of it is pulling the yellow one. And what is causing the blue one to move, but a brown one pulling it. This is true as far down the tracks as you can see. Now if you were really curious, you might ask, "What is causing the whole series of boxcars to move?" The answer is obvious. A locomotive (which you cannot see because it is too far down the track) is pulling all of the boxcars. And the locomotive is different than the boxcars in that it is the "first cause"- it does not need a boxcar to pull it. It started (and we could say sustains) the whole series of boxcars moving.

So if a personal God does not exist, then how do we account for the cause/effect nature of the world that we live in? Ultimately, we cannot account for it any other way. But when we affirm a Creator God the world makes much more sense.

Now let me also be honest about something. These arguments, as I stated in the last post, standing by themselves are not that strong. The cumulative understanding of all the arguments provides a strong case for God's existence. The above argument successfully shows the viability of intelligent design. However, it fails in that it does not identify the Intelligent Designer as the God of Scripture- the God of Christian theism. Any religion that believes the world was created could use this argument. Again, this highlights once more the importance of 2 Corinthians 4: 3-6, "And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Light shall shine out of darkness', is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God int he face of Christ".

The Spirit must do a specific, independent work on a heart before it affirms the God of Scripture. And the Spirit of God will not do this without revealing God through the person and work of His Son Jesus Christ!

Back to the Basics

I would like to return to a series I began several weeks ago entitled, "A Study of Basic Christian Doctirne: Answers to Questions Every Christian Ought to Know". Due to the church schedule and Thanksgiving holiday I have posted other things the past three weeks, but today I want to return to the primary series featured on the blog currently.Let me remind you where we are:

- We are currently answering the question, "How do we know God?"
- I have established three points to answer this question:
The witness of God's Work
The witness of God's World
The witness of God's Word
- We have already dealt with the first point (see archive posts)
- We are beginning the second point today- The witness of God's world


THE WITNESS OF GOD'S WORLD
We want to continue to answer the question, How do we know God? by looking at various philosophical arguments that can be used to support the notion that He does indeed exist. Dr. Oliver at Clearwater Christian, and Dr. Parker at Southern Seminary would probably be surprised that I am dealing with philosophy. To be honest, in the past it has not been my favorite subject. Unfortunately, this has shown itself in various ways. Recently, however, I have really grown to appreciate philosophy more. I have come to see the importance of philosophy in the Christian worldview, particularly (if not primarily) regarding the subject of God's existence.

Let me give you the four main categories that classify the various arguments for God's existence: 1) cosmological arguments, 2) ontological arguments, 3) moral arguments, 4) teleological arguments.

Instead of spending our time defining what the above terms mean, we are going to give some actual arguments from these various categories. To me that is much more practical. I would rather give you the fruit of philosophical analysis than spend time talking about the philosophy of philosophy itself! If you want more on the above terms, then you can see me and I will point you to some good resources (better than myself!).

I have three arguments for God's existence outlined. However, before I go into those arguments, I want to make a strong caveat regarding this whole discussion. Next post will deal with the actual arguments. This post, however, is foundational to understanding how one is to view the arguments that follow.



The Caveat
Let me be clear, I say that these arguments are used to support God's existence (not prove God's existence) because ultimately no philosophical argument proves anything to anyone. In 2 Cor. 4:1-6, Paul is clear about the fact that sin affects our minds/intellect. It is not until the Spirit of the living God moves in a heart that he will be convinced of any truth. It is not arguments for the existence of God that saves; it is the message of the Gospel engineered by the Holy Spirit that saves! The reason for this is due to the power of sin. Sin distorts our ability to perceive truth. Only something more powerful than sin- God- can help our weak flesh overcome this intellectual distortion.

Supposed "proofs" for God's existence, in the final analysis, may prove nothing. A simple illustration will do well here. Let's say that you are in the middle of a large city on a winter day. All of the sudden you see a drunk man climbing up a light pole screaming, "Bear, bear!" As you look up there is a dog running in front of the man. You can tell he is drunk, and you being sober, decide to try and convince him that all he saw was a dog, not a bear. Chances are, due to the alcoholic condition of the man, you will fail in your attempts. Why? Because alcohol has affected his perception of what is true- what is reality.

You could be very intelligent, and argue logically and reasonably. However, the alcohol is an obstacle that prevents you from convincing this man that all he saw was a dog. You could use both logic and evidence to persuade him.

You could argue logically: "Look guy, its ridiculous to think you saw a bear. We are in the middle of the city. Bears do not roam around in the city."

You could argue logically again: "In fact, look around. Nobody else is fearful for their lives like you. Why is that? Because it was just a dog, not a bear."

You could point to evidence: "Look at these tiny footprints. Don't you think that a bear's footprints are bigger than this?"

You could point to more evidence: You could call the dog over and pet it in front of the drunk man.

The point is that sin ruins our ability to affirm truth just as the alchohol ruined the perception of the man on the light pole. He could not perceive reality- which was that (in reality) he had only seen a dog, not a bear.

In addition, arguments which support God's existence are incapable of satisfying the "proof criteria" of every person without exception. Who determines when a proof is viable and legitimate? Not everyone has the same criteria (exactly). Everyone possesses the same basic equipment of "proof criteria". That is, due to being created in God's image in God's world all men have a fundamental knowledge of God's laws of logic. But that is different than saying everyone possesses the same exact criteria for what constitutes an argument as legitimate, or illegitimate, illogical, or erroneous.

The reason all men do not possess the exact package of "proof criteria" is due to the fact that sin has distorted our minds on different levels. Therefore, sin keeps us from thinking in rational patterns of thought. Belief in God is basic as I have pointed out before. Were it not for sin distorting our ability to think rationally, then we would affirm the existence of God in the exact same way that a sane, logical, mature minded person would affirm that they are reading off a computer screen right now. That is how powerful sin is in distorting truth. And that is how innate belief in God is to us.

So let me be clear. Arguments used to support God's existence do just that- they support it. They do not prove it. Only the Spirit of God can do that to a skeptic, and He uses the Gospel every time to do so.

Now God can use you speaking forth these arguments to trigger belief in someones heart. Thus, arguments for God's existence on the philosophical level are by no means useless. When, as believers, we are dealing with a skeptic we give forth any argument that might help that person see God in the person of Jesus Christ. We act as if God could regenerate their hearts at any moment....because He could! We do not know the mind of God. But at the end of the day God gets the credit, right?

So we are not to use arguments for God's existence with the idea that they can prove His existence beyond doubt. Rather, we use them with the view that His existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The same is true with court cases. Evidence given in a murder trial such as: 1) a gun with the DNA of the accused, 2) the location of the accused at the time of the murder, and 3) personal motives on the part of the accused to kill the victim proven to be legitimate all serve as strands of evidence (when taken together) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. Even with a witness claiming he saw the defendant shoot the victim does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You say how so? Because the witness could be lying! We do not ultimately know.

My caveat (although quite lengthy) is simply that nothing, absolutely nothing replaces the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If someone denies God's existence he will not be convinced by man's persuasive philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. The Spirit of God will be the first to convince the skeptic of any truth, and then God may choose to use your arguments to trigger belief, or affirm belief. It is only the powerful message of the Gospel when applied by the Holy Spirit that convinces someone of the worthiness and value of God to be worshipped and adored!

One more thing....arguments for God's existence lie in their cumulative ability, rather than their independent ability. These arguments are like a rope made up of many small strands. One of those small strands is not that strong. However, when they are tied together the rope becomes very strong.

Next time we will look at the first argument.

Manhattan Declaration Revisited Once Again

For those of you who might be interested in the implications of key conservative evangelicals signing the Manhattan Declaration, then read the following

Michael Horton's article opposing the declaration

R.C. Sproul's article opposing the declaration and calling upon his friends who did sign it to remove their names from the document

Lig Duncan's article explaining why some members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals signed the document


I have read all of the above and would like to make a few clarifications regarding the implications of the wide array of disagreement between key evangelical leaders.

1. The signers of the document have made it clear (at least the key ones who have written articles defending why they signed it) that they disagree with Roman Catholics on the Gospel. They make it clear that their signatures in no way whatsoever support, affirm, or even astuciously imply that they are one with the Roman Catholics on the Gospel.

2. Therefore, the consciences of the signers (who have defended why they signed the document) have not been violated or compromised.

3. The non-signers of the document who have openly disagreed with what the document implies- that Catholics and Protestants are united in the Gospel- have made it clear that they take the signers at their word when they say their consciences have not been compromised.

4. Therefore, the non-signers cardinal issue is not with particular signers of the document and their view of the Gospel. Rather, it is with the lack of discretion and judgement used by these signers (their friends and co-laborers in promoting the Gospel) that led to their signing of the document. In other words, these non-signers make it clear that those who signed the document were unwise at worst, and simply duped by Colson and his clan at best.

5. In addition, the non-signers affirm boldly and unashamedly the moral issues outlined in the document.

Below I have chosen to use one word to describe the articles of both the signers and non-signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

Al Mohler's article explaining why he signed it....honest
Allistair Begg's article explaining he did not sign it...pastoral
John MacArthur's article explaining why he did not sign it...direct
Lig Duncan's (President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) article explaining why some members of the Alliance signed the document and others did not sign it...clear
R.C. Sproul's article explaining why he did not sign it...passionate
Michael Horton's article explaining why he did not sign it...perceptive

I would urge anyone who is aware of the document to read through it carefully (not just the summary version) before signing. Once again, at this point I am convinced that it is an issue of conscience. It depends on how one reads the document. It is a judgement call. However, Chuck Colson has made some remarks in an interview that reveal his intention (as one of the three primary authors) for the document. In the interview he makes it clear that he believes the document effectively joins Catholics and Protestants together under the banner of the Gospel....something to think about.

Some Questions Regarding the Manhattan Declaration Upon Further Reflection

Here are just a few questions that have come up regarding the Manhattan Declaration. I will try and not comment (too much) on each question. Instead, I will just pose the questions. I welcome responses seeing that I have not yet firmly agreed, or disagree with the Declaration.

1. Are we Biblically mandated, commanded, or encouraged to draft manifesto's/declarations with political overtones (Mike Huckabee's example of the 95 Theses as being comparable to the Manhattan Declaration is absurd and shameful to even suggest in my opinion- though I like Huckabee otherwise)?

2. Are manifesto's/declarations usually effective?

3. Is the Gospel enough to change hearts and culture, or does a document/manifesto help the process of changing hearts and culture?

4. If the document is not about the Gospel (as I have indicated in another post I believe that many interpret the document this way...including myself) but about moral issues, then why does it not include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists so long as they agree on the moral issues? In other words, why exclude those who agree with the moral issues contained in the declaration?

5. Does the document not detail the Gospel due to the fact that all the original signatories would not have agreed upon what the Gospel is?

6. Will we see some of the people who signed it publicly ask for their signatures to be removed (I am thinking especially of the Together for the Gospel Conference coming up)?

7. Is there not an essential difference between Christians formally "partnering" with unbelievers in a club or society that is professedly not Christian (say PTA) as opposed to formally "partnering" with people in a manifesto who say they are Christian but whose particular church's official teaching clearly denies the Biblical Gospel (ex. Roman Catholic view of justification by faith)?

8. Again, should we not simply take people at their word when they profess that they are Christians? Maybe some of the signatories that signed the document really are Christian even though their particular church's official teaching denies the Gospel? In other words, could there be "rebels" for the Gospel still retaining membership in church's that are not evangelical Protestant?

I am trying to think through these issues clearly. Earlier today I listened to an interview of Al Mohler (probably the one most are surprised signed the document) who welcomed MacArthur and Begg's critiques and expressed gratefulness for their insight confessing he needs help thinking through these issues as well. If Mohler needs help, I think it is safe to say that I do as well! I created this blog with a conscious effort to not labor on current news like this. However, the fact that the President of my Seminary signed this document has drawn my attention into the debate.

By the way if you have not read the declaration, click here.

Grace and Peace,

Andy

Random Post About the Phenomenom of Internet Radio...I'm Obsessed

I have been infatuated with the phenomenon of Internet radio for the last 3-4 yrs. Several months ago I was having a conversation with a group of people about how cool Internet radio is. The people present had never heard of some of the websites that I said I listened to. I very rarely buy Cd's anymore because Internet radio provides one with 24 hours of the specific type of music you want, and many of them have very, very few commercials. My wife wanted a Christmas CD the other day and I said, "No problem." I logged onto the Internet and had a variety of Christmas music playing for free. I always have music playing in my headphones when I study. Consequently, I listen to a variety of music and stations. Here is a list of my three favorite Internet radio sites (check them out):

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/ (both the hymns and acoustic praise are excellent- no commercials!)

http://www.pandora.com/ (hardly any commercials)

http://www.slacker.com/ (a few more commercials, but a wide selection of stations)

Andy

A Few Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration

I have been asked about my thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration (click to read it). I have spent the time to read the document itself. However, understanding that I am inadequate to form an opinion of the document from one cursory reading, I opted to do a little more research. Thus. I have also read various reflections on the content and purpose of the document itself by people way smarter than myself whose opinions were welcomed from the beginning. Some such as John MacArthur and Allistair Begg agree with what is being defended in the document, but refused to sign it due to the fact that the document appears to be similar to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and other such documents. These particular leaders of the Christian church see the document as a Gospel compromise because those who believe the Biblical Gospel are "partnering" with with those who obviously do not believe the Biblical Gospel (i.e. Roman Catholics). In other words, a broad range of men and women from various denominations have attached their names to this document and respected leaders such as MacArthur and Begg view this as too ecumenical.

Others such as Al Mohler adamantly defended their signing of the document suggesting that penning his signature in no way compromised the Gospel in his own conscience. Mohler, as usual argues very convincingly about the primary purpose and importance of such a document.

For those wondering- my opinion was never welcomed, nor did I (or do I- believe me) expect it to be. It ultimately does not matter what I think. The document was drafted with the purpose of garnering influential Christian leaders to align themselves with the goals communicated in the document in order to send a clear message. For the record, I do not think the world is loosing sleep because Andy Smith has, or has not signed the document. As I stated, in the overall scheme of things my opinion amounts to, well.....nothing. On the other hand, some in our church have kept up with the controversy surrounding the drafting of this document and have asked if I have heard about it and what I think of it. Therefore, I want to offer just a few thoughts on the matter. Take these for what they are worth. Ultimately, I believe one's own conscience must dictate whether they approve or disapprove of the document.

1. The overall purpose of the document must be kept in proper perspective. The purpose of the document is stated early on, "We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear His image."

Now the three areas the document outlines to "defend the good of all who bear His image" are: 1) "the profound , inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life", 2) "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society", and 3) "religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image".

To me, these appear to be very worthy ideals to defend as Christians. All three flow from the concept of all men and women being created in the image of God. We have talked about this in before so I will not wax here. But take marriage for instance, God created us to reflect the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit loving one another sacrificially). And one of the primary ways this is done is in marriage. Marriage (instituted at creation) allows us to behold and reflect the triune God that we worship. Marriage, as established at creation, was not meant to be a union between "Adam and Steve", but "Adam and Eve" (I know that is an over used cliche but it is true!). God's rules for marriage have not changed since creation. Marriage is only marriage (Biblically speaking) when it is between a man and woman. Thus, marriage between male and female was established at creation and reigns as a universal rule whether one is Christian or not. Therefore, Christians do well to defend this because it is a creation principle that has never changed. Society itself is built upon that universal, creational law. (Note: I am not saying that it is a law to be married. I am simply saying that if one chooses to get married they must do it the way that God designed marriage from the beginning- between a man and woman).

Second, the document points out (rightly so) that the promotion of same-sex marriage whether in attitude or practice is only a symptom of the greater problem. And the greater problem lies with the failure of professing Christians to take marriage seriously, and to understand it in its God given purposes. The document says, "We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage." The document then affirms that the current capitulation to the culture's current view of marriage by Christians would only "lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion, and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents maritial love) , we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant."

There is a proper attitude for Christians to bear regarding marriage. Christians should start taking marriage more seriously than we have in more recent times. We ought to view marriage as less about sexual and emotional pleasure and more about the unique ability that marriage offers in the arena of creating another life made in the image of God! We ought to rejoice in this privilege; not begrudge it, or view children as an inconvenience. The feminist movement has not helped out here; and neither has the "safe sex" movement.

In many ways, the document is brilliant because it compellingly ties together the issues of homosexuality, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and religious liberty as one big, complex issue. And the complexity is removed when one realizes that the central issue is really submission to our Creator. Christians do not serve Ceaser. As the document itself pointed out, "We will fully and ungrudingly render to Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Ceaser's what is God's." Christians serve God through Jesus Christ our Redeemer!

In an increasingly sissified culture, it is nice to see professing Christians take such a courageous and bold stance.

2. As Mohler has documented on countless occasions, Canada and some European countries have been a theatre for recent cases where Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality with the Bible as their authority for doing so. Thus, this document could help make the church function more smoothly if it achieves its intended goal. The document affirms the church's discretion as to who is qualified to pastor, what to preach, and what beliefs to propagate whether from the pulpit, through literature, or the Internet. For me, this becomes a personal issue. I DON'T want anyone dictating to me what to preach. If I found myself in circumstances where that was happening on a legal level I pray that I would do the Christ honoring thing (that would be preaching the Gospel regardless of the cost for myself or family for those wondering what the Christ honoring thing would be)!

3. So far my comments have supported the document and its purpose. However, I do have one axe to grind with the Declaration. I do not know if it would be enough for me to not sign the document or not. I have not decided. My grievance is with the wording of the document. From the beginning, the document assumes that Roman Catholics affirm the Biblical Gospel.

This is the point that MacArthur and Begg make in their articles, and which serves as the primary reason that neither one of them signed the document. Read these words from MacArthur (the modern day Prince of Preachers), "...it assumes from the beginning that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct communities. Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as 'historic lines of ecclesial differences' rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity. Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel's essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like 'we [and] our fellow believers', 'As Christians , we...', and 'we claim the heritage of....Christians'. That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic Biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions".

I understand what MacArthur is saying and actually agree with him. I would point out, however that there is a sense in which Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people (at least the ones who signed the document) could be genuine Christians. I would not hesitate to say that it is possible for a Catholic to be a Christian. In fact, I have known a few myself. That does not mean Catholic doctrine holds to the true Gospel. If you do not believe me, then follow Allistar Begg's advice (who also refused to sign the document) and read Calvin's Institutes on the Roman Catholic Mass (Book IV, Chapter 18)!

Furthermore, even if some of the signatories prove to not be true believers, it does not stand to reason that all of them must of necessity be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Would it not be possible that some of the Protestants that signed the document could prove in the final analysis to not be Christian as well? I am not trying to split hairs. Nor am I trying to judge the heart of any man that signed the document. Nevertheless, one must concede that there are Protestants who could articulate the Gospel in and out; yet still be lost. On the other hand, there could be Roman Catholics who know the Gospel, but remain in the Catholic church for inferior reasons of which they are even aware. I would just provide one caveat- I think the former is more prominent than the latter option; however, that is just my opinion.

The point is that even those who signed the document and hold wholeheartedly to a form of the heretical version of the gospel as espoused by the Roman Catholic church still affirm belief in the God of the Bible.

We have spoken a lot about this in our current Sunday School series. One can believe in God and not be a Christian in the "Gospel sense", right? James tells us that the demons know there is a God, but they are not Christians in the "Gospel sense". So the document is affirming basic truths about a Creator God. The basic truth is that all men are created in His image. The document is not trying to bring Catholics and Protestants together on the doctrinal details of the Gospel. Rather, the agenda of the document (to me at least) seems to be an effort to promote the basic freedom and rights of not just Christians, but non-Christians who have all been created in the triune image of God- our Maker.

So I think that MacArthur and Begg have a valid point. The language of the document does (to me) assume that Roman Catholics are Christians in the same sense as Protestants. I disagree with that and wholeheartedly affirm that Roman Catholic doctrine is heretical and damnable. Thus, I think the language of the document is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the document does promote a worthy cause that even non-Christians could benefit from because the overall thrust of the document (it seems to me) is to send a message that supports and promotes universal laws that God established at creation such as the sanctity of human life (on both ends- whether embryo fashion or nursing home fashion) and Biblical marriage.

Conclusion

As I said, nobody is waiting to see whether I will sign the document or not. These are just my current musings on the Declaration. Take them for what they are worth. May your conscience by your guide!

AMS

Quote

Laying on my desk are a series of index cards with different quotes that I have written down over the last several weeks. For most of the quotes I have indicated the specific author who penned it. However, (for whatever reason) I failed to indicate the author of my favorite quote on these cards. I really do not know where I read this one, but it is good......

"We must be willing to laugh at all our righteous, good deeds."

This is well said. We must view our good works as worth nothing before a holy God. They do not even come close to impressing God.

Part 2 on Reformed Evangelism

To view my articles on Reformed Evangelism- go to www.soundofgrace.com (not soundofgrace.org). I apologize for giving the wrong web address. Some were surprised to find many things completley unrelated to the Gospel or evangelism (apparently the webmaster for those websites needs the Gospel!)...for that I am sorry.

To view Part 1 go to the Nov. issue of Sound of Grace. If you want part 2 click on the Dec./Jan. issue. And if you want Part 3, then wait until Feb.

Sorry for the confusion.

The Light of the World Exposing Darkness, John 8:12-20

John 8:12-20 includes the second "I am" statement found in John's Gospel. In chapter six Jesus referred to Himself as the "Bread of life". All of the "I am" statements are declarations of deity and Messiahship. They are metaphors revealing a different aspect of Christ's Messianic identiy.

There is a pattern to the way that Jesus makes statements about His Messianic identity. This pattern is striking because it shows His constant allegiance to obey the Father fully. This pattern manifests a spirit that refused to walk one step ahead of the Father's will.

For instance, in chapter six, Jesus feeds the multitudes with the loaves and fish. Directly following this incident on the very next day Jesus says to the same crowd that had followed Him to the other side of the sea, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (6:35).

In chapter seven, Jesus waited until that water ritual ceremony occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles (likely right at the climax on the final day when the priest poured the water on the altar) and then He cried out, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water'" (7:37).

Now here in chapter eight, Jesus says, "I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life" (8:12). Like Christ's declaration in chapter seven, this one also follows the theme of the Feast of Tabernacles, and specifically points to another particular ceremony to which we will talk about later.

This pattern of "specific event/specific declaration" is not only striking due to it revealing Christ's willingness to capitalize on the circumstances that the Father sovereignly orchestrated in order to make His case as the Messiah in a very natural, progressive manner. It is also striking for another reason.

If you have not already noticed all three declarations contained in chapters six, seven, and eight all refer back to the wilderness wanderings of the children of Israel. Aside from the fact that the events of chapter seven are separated by roughly six months (The Retirement Ministry of Jesus), all three constitute real life events during those wilderness years that every Israelite would have understood.

In chapter six, Jesus clearly makes a connection with the manna in the wilderness with His declaration He was the "Bread of life" (6:31 ff.). God provided bread (manna) in the wilderness, but that bread only pointed to the true bread (6:32) which the Father now gave in sending His Son into the world.

In chapter seven, the Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated with that elaborate water pouring ceremony. What did the water point to? It pointed to the wilderness wanderings when Moses struck the rock and Meribah and water flowed out. The whole Feast pointed to the wilderness wanderings. In fact, they called it the "Feast of Tabernacles" (same as Feast of Booths, or Feast of Thanksgiving) due to the fact that all the pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem would dwell in makeshift huts (booths) to remind them of the wilderness wanderings when they had yet reached the land God promised and thus had no permanent dwelling. When Jesus says that if one feels their need for thirst they must simply come to Him He was showing that the provision of water in the wilderness by God only pointed forward to the true provision of "living water" found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

And in chapter eight, Jesus--as we will see-- makes this declaration against the background of another feature of the children of Israel's wandering in the wilderness.

In other words, Jesus was showing that He was the fulfillment of all those "types" in the wilderness-- the manna, bread, and light. He was showing that all those things were not important in and of themselves. They only meant something true and meaningful when connected with His identity as the Messiah.

Thus, the way in which Christ revealed Himself was natural and submissive. It was natural because He allowed the normal events of life (as He conducted His main activity of teaching) to come to Him as the Father orchestrated them. And when the opportunity came to make an impressionable statement about His identity, He seized the opportunity. It was submissive because He refused to walk one step behind, or before the will of the Father. Thus, Jesus is the true pattern of obedience! In this obedience we see a "specific event/specific declaration" pattern.

Now let's look at the present passage (8:12-20) a little closer. Chapter eighth finds Jesus in a situation that John all too often shows Him in. Once again the religious leaders are challenging His teaching. More specifically, they are challenging His claim in being the "Light of the world". And once again, He reveals before the crowds their foolishness and hardness of heart. Thus, the passage includes an interchange between Jesus and the Pharisees that can be divided up into the 3 phases of Christ's argumentation. His argumentation reveals that He is Light, but the Pharisees are darkness. First, we will see the great claim, then the grave contrast, and finally the grim conclusion.


I. THE GREAT CLAIM (vs.12)
Verse 12 notes the great claim by Jesus, "I am the Light of the world". Jesus did not just make this claim "out of the blue". It was said against the backdrop of the "lighting ceremony". During the Feast of Tabernacles there existed two primary ceremonies of celebration. The first, I mentioned above (the water ceremony). The second took place in the very part of the temple where Christ was teaching this day. Verse 20 clues us in that He was teaching in the Treasury. The Treasury was located in the Court of Women. In this section of the temple were constructed four huge candelabra. Some say these candelabra were as high as the temple walls themselves. In fact, it would take a priest climbing a ladder to light the wick that protruded from the top. The bowl on the top, it is said, contained sixty-five liters of oil. When those candelabra were lit there was virtually not a yard in the whole city of Jerusalem that did not share some of the light that exuded from these massive torches.

The mishna says that the lighting ceremony involved dancing and music even from those who were considered dignitaries. Why light these candelabra? What did they point to? They reminded the children of Israel of their wilderness wanderings when God led them with the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire at night.Once again, Jesus is saying, "I am the fulfillment of that pillar of fire! It pointed to Me, I am the Light of the world."

It is likely that Jesus is standing right underneath those candelabra when He makes that statement. The children of Israel would have known exactly what He was talking about.

The metaphor is rather simple to understand. In 1:4 John referred to Jesus as the Light and specifically said that the "Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it". Jesus, as the Light, illumines the sinful soul to see his sin, and the glory of Jesus Christ. We grope around in the darkness of sin trying to find our way and Jesus shines His light into our souls and says, "I am the Way". Another way to put it is to say that Christ's Light makes our darkness disappear. That is, after all, what light does. It shines, and when it does darkness is gone, right?

Those hearing this claim would have known that Jesus was declaring His identity as Messiah. Isaiah refers to the Messiah as a "light to the nations" (Is. 42:6; 49:6). Furthermore, the rabbi's would call the Messiah "the Light" as a sort of nickname.

So for the original audience His identity as Messiah was the main thing communicated to them.

Now the rest of what He says in vs. 12 accentuates the meaning further: "he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness but will have the Light of life". The first half of vs.12 tells us who Jesus is, and by implication what the Gospel does (illumines dark souls with he light of the Gospel leading to salvation- 2 Cor. 4:4-6). The second half of vs. 12 tells us how the Gospel changes one's life in regards to sanctification.

To "have the Light of life" means one "will not walk in darkness". And only the one who "follows Jesus" in trust and belief will "have the Light of life", and will thus "not walk in darkness". The message is simple: Christ saves us from the condemnation of sin; but He also saves us from the control of sin. To put it another way, Christ saves us from Satan; but He also saves us from ourselves.

In fact, it is true to say that if one possesses the "Light of life", then they will become lights themselves. Christ Himself said so in Matthew 5:14-16, "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden, nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

The Apostle Paul later picked up on this theme in numerous places (Eph. 5:8; Phil. 2:15; I Thess. 5:5). In these passages the message is clear: to follow Christ is to shine as lights in darkness. This includes trying to do "what is pleasing to Him" (Eph. 5:10) and working out one's "salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12-13).

We become little lights by having our small torches lit from the big torch--Jesus Christ. So to "have the Light of life" is to "follow" Jesus. And to do so is to "not walk in darkness". All of this is summed up nicely by John himself in his first epistle, " This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth, but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (I Jn. 1:5-7).

Christ's claim is great indeed. He is revealing His ability to save sinners from the condemnation of darkness and the control of darkness. God transforms a life; He doesn't just save a life. The Gospel, therefore, reveals the ethic of the New Covenant. And the ethic of the New Covenant is obedience and submission to Jesus Christ. Obedience is not perfection, but obedience is constant.

The children of Israel were never characterized by true obedience. Even before the covenant was officially sealed, they broke the law of the covenant by forming the golden calf. After it was sealed, they constantly failed to obey everything in it. That was the requirement by the way- complete obedience. However, even in their stumbling in darkness they did picture New Covenant obedience by the grace of God in one important sense. This obedience had nothing to do with the law, but it nevertheless was obedience in its truest and simplest sense.

The children of Israel (read Numbers 9:15-22) submitted themselves constantly to the pillar of fire that led them through the wilderness. When the pillar stopped, they set up camp. When the pillar moved, they moved. Numbers is adamant about this fact. They constantly and continuously were characterized by obedience and submission to the pillar of fire.

And that is what makes Christ's declaration that much greater. Christ is saying, "I am the pillar of fire--the new pillar of fire because I am the light of the world, not just to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. I am the light to the nations (the world). I will bring two people together in one covenant. And my power is greater than the law's power. It never secured faithfulness. I am like the pillar however, which secured faithfulness in picture form. Those who follow me will not be perfect in this lifetime, but they will be characterized by a new desire to obey me and place themselves under the new pillar of fire. I will be their guide. Their ethic will be obedience. And this obedience is possible because of the light I have shined into their lost, dark souls."

The question if you are a Christian is not, "Do you sin?" The question is, "When you sin, or we could say when you leave the camp and walk before or behind the pillar of fire (Christ's Lordship), do you come back?" Christ is saying that is what the Gospel does. It does not just save you from the condemnation of sin as beautiful and foundational as that is. But it also saves from the control of sin. We have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved someday.

Now here is an important application for us: when we look at the Israelites in the Old Testament we must be careful not to adopt the Old Covenant ethic for our lives. The New Covenant ethic is different. It is different because the law is different. The law led the Israelite in the Old Covenant. The Spirit leads the new Israelite of the New Covenant.

I honestly do not know how much the original audience would have understood regarding what I have just said. But what I just said we know to be true because we have the rest of the New Testament Scriptures to confirm this. Furthermore, the original audience standing in the temple listening to Jesus would have certainly understood Christ's claim to be the Messiah. Let's look further in this text and see what kind of reaction we get from the Pharisees who were there listening with the crowds.

II. THE GRAVE CONTRAST (vss. 13-18)
Everything in these verses shows the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees. He was everything that they were not, but prided themselves in being. They saw themselves as worshipers of the Father in heaven due to their strict adherence to Mosaic law. But in reality, they did not know the Father at all. They thought their judgement regarding Christ's identity was pure and right. It was fleshly and wrong, however. Jesus' own judgement of Himself, on the other hand, was pure and right.

Notice the Pharisees reaction in vs. 13, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." It is likely that they are picking up on what Jesus said in 5:31, "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true." They were trying to show that Jesus was contradicting Himself by catching Him in a legal technicality due to the fact that the law called for two witnesses to verify a truth claim. Futhermore, Jesus had apparently placed Himself under that requirment in chapter 5. Now it seems He is contradicting what He did in chapter 5.

Jesus was not contradicting Himself, however. In chapter five, He placed Himself under their standards of requiring two witnesses. And later in that passage, He pointed to the Father as a witness, "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true."

For a moment, Jesus does not claim another witness in our current passage. Instead, undoubtedly to prove a point, Jesus says His testimony by itself is enough. Notice vs. 14, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going."

Jesus is simply saying that He knows His identity; He does not need another witness. On the other hand, the Pharisees think they know His identity (not the Messiah); but they are dead wrong! He is right; they are wrong. That is the contrast that Jesus is trying to get the Pharisees and the crowd to see.

He continues in vs. 15, "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone". Now we know from 2 Tim. 4:1 that at His appearing Jesus will judge the living and the dead. We also know from Rom. 2:16 that God will judge the secrets of men's hearts through Jesus Christ. There is a sense in which Jesus is the ultimate judge of everyone. In fact, Jesus Himself affirmed this in 5:22, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son". In 9:39 He also says, "For judgement I came into this world...".

How then do we synthesize Christ's statement that He doesn't judge. Well, we are to understand His words in their context. The first phrase in vs. 15 clarifies what Jesus means. Jesus does not judge like the Pharisees judge- "according to the flesh". In other words, Jesus is not saying that He doesn't judge in any sense. Rather, He is saying that His judgement is nothing like the Pharisees. Their judgement is "fleshly"--innately human and sinful and stemming from a hard heart that hates Jesus no matter how much evidence He offers to them proving that He is the Messiah.

Jesus' judgement, on the other hand, it not fleshly. It is right and pure because He is God. And what He says about Himself is true. If this sounds like what some call circular reasoning, it is. Jesus does not back down from what is true, however. Here is the contrast: He is right about His identity; they are not. They judge wrongly. Christ's judgement is perfect because He knows that He came from the Father.

We might ask, "Why would Jesus argue in this manner?" Well, I am not convinced that I know the answer. But it seems that He has shown miracle after miracle and sign after sign, yet the religious leaders still reject Him. So why not just argue the truth without offering any proof or sign? They are not going to believe anyway. Their hearts are so hardened at this point. So Jesus just throws the truth out there and seems to argue in a circular manner. It does not matter at this point.

Jesus told Nicodemus that He did not primarily come into the world to judge, but to save. He repeats this sentiment in 12:47. Its not that Jesus never judges; but His primary reason for coming was to save. Notice the contrast between the law's purpose and Christ's purpose. The law judges and condemns. That is what Scripture teaches its purpose is. But Christ's purpose is to save. He only judges those who reject Him. And He will judge the Pharisees because the vast majority of them (like the rest of Israel) will reject Him.

But He does something sly and unsuspecting next. He has just argued very simply that they are wrong and He is right as the basis of His argumentation. In other words, its as if Jesus said, "You are wrong because you are wrong, and therefore your judgement is wrong. But I am right because I am right, and therefore my judegement is right." This would have made the Pharisee's blood boil. It would have frusterated them beyond anything we can imagine. They were, afterall, (along with their counterparts, the scribes) self-proclaimed experts of the law and thus of Messianic idenitity. They thougth their own judgment of who the Messiah would be was all that mattered. Jesus bursts their proverbial bubble once again.

To top it off He gives them a taste of thier own "law loving" medicine in vss. 16-18. Their desire for Him to have two witnessses to verify His truth claim in being the Light of the world backfires on them. Notice, "But even if I do judge, My judgement is true; for I am not alone it it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."

You know what Jesus is saying? Its as if He said, "I do not judge like you. When I judge, my judgement is true. That is different (in contrast) to yours, which is always wrong. I am not alone in my judgement anyway. You want two men to verify my truth claim? Okay, I will do better than that. I will give you two witnesses that are not mere men: 1) I am the first witness, and 2) My Father is the second. There are your two witnesses that you asked for."

The contrast is condemning: Jesus is right; the Pharisees are wrong!

Now notice what the great claim, which led to the grave contrast leads to--- a grim conclusion.

III. A GRIM CONCLUSION (vss. 19-20)
Their hardness continues, this time with an underlying cheap shot slightly covered with a question. Completely out of arguments due to the strength of Christ's argumentation, they respond with a question in vs. 19, "Where is Your father?"

This was nothing more than another attempt to undermine the credibility of Jesus before the crowds. Joseph was dead by now, first of all. But secondly, the accusatory spirit of the Pharisees is dripping from this question. "Oh, by the way Jesus, where is your dad?" This is nothing short of calling Jesus a bastard. They were trying to point out to the crowd that Jesus was the product of illegetimate means. A similar thing occurs later in vs. 41.

They were trying to get the crowd to doubt Christ's claims on the basis of false charges. Mary was pregnant before official marriage. Nevertheless, we know it was not because of impure relations between Joseph and Mary; Scripture is clear about that. Nevertheless, that was the accusation.

The Pharisees have reached an all time low with their question. Rather than Jesus becoming rattled or flying off the handle He simply says, "You know neither Me nor my Father; if you knew Me, you would know my Father also".

In other words, Jesus is saying "You do not know the Father in heaven who you pridefully claim to know because you have rejected Me. Because you reject Me and my identity as Messiah, you have also rejected the Father." That was a grim conclusioin to an already strong argument.

Vs. 20 says that these things took place in the "Treasury". Within an earshot of the Treasury was the very meeting hall of the Sanhedrin. In a passage dealing with those in the New Covenant being "lights of the world" this is fitting. Christ was obedient regardless of the hostile circumstances. He was fully submissive to the Father. He was fearless, confident, and faithful to His Divine mission. For He knew He could say these things right in the meeting hall of the Sanhedrin if need be, and ultimately it would not matter. For His Father was orchestrating the events of His life down to the very detail. He would not die one second before, or after the will of the Father. Therefore, we read at the end of vs. 20, "no one seized Him (arrested Him) because His hour had not yet come".

Just as the Sandhedrin meeting that day were not being directly spoken to; they were in the vicinity of the comments by Christ. Perhaps they could hear Christ's claim (meeting just a wall over in the temple). They did not heed his warnings. And they, like many today, suffered the same grim fate. Those who reject Christ today are just as guilty as those who stood in the temple and listened to Him teach. In fact, we might say that they are more culpable for their unbelief due to the fact that 2,000 plus years have witnessed saint after saint martyred for Christ. The age of the New Covenant is a testimony in and of itself to the truths that Jesus proclaimed. Jesus is seen in the lives of true beleivers. When people today reject Christ, they have the same grim conclusioin pronounced to them that we find here in John 8.

Do you know Him? Does vs. 12 characterize you- "have the Light of life"? Or, does vs.19 characterize you- "You don't know Me"?

Jesus is the Light of the world. His light is shining. Will you walk into the Light?