Hidden reefs in your feasts of charity

Jude is one of the most astounding letters in the New Testament. It is short, its writer did not write any other part of Scripture, and it very tightly and briefly sticks to just one subject, which is not in fact the subject that Jude wanted to write about initially. It is also very closely paralleled with II Peter 2, similar to the parallels between Ephesians and Colossians, except that these were both written by Paul. The  necessary repetition illustrates the grave importance of its contents.

None of this is what makes it astounding. It is astounding because of the subject that Jude chose not to write about: our common salvation (Jude 1:3). What could be more important than that? This calls us to sit up and take notice. Jude tells us that he had to write instead to exhort us to earnestly contend for the faith. The word "earnestly contend" is used only here in all of Scripture. The same verb (without the prefix here translated "earnestly") is elsewhere translated as "strive" or simply "fight".

This is often taken to be an urgent call to polemics in theological writing and to apologetics generally. While it certainly includes and implies that application, this is not primarily what Jude has in mind. What Jude is concerned about primarily is the exercise of right judgement in the practice of church discipline. Specifically, that such judgement ought to recognize the terrible implications of the doctrine of reprobation for church membership, namely, that there are reprobate hypocrites in the church for whom there is no possibility of remediation and salvation.

The letter is entirely composed around this subject:

1. Jude warns us that ungodly men who were eternally reprobated have secretly infiltrated the church (Jude 1:4).
2. Jude tells us to remember that unbelieving reprobate were among God's people brought out of Egypt in the Old Testament and even among the angels so that we do not deny the possibility of their existence (Jude 1:5-6).
3. Jude highlights Sodom and Gomorrah as specifically designed examples of God's vengeance on the wicked so we do not doubt the end God has appointed for them (Jude 1:7).
4. Jude outlines various characteristics of these dangerous reprobate hypocrites within the church so that we may recognize and rightly identify them when they expose themselves (recall that they attempt, with significant success, to hide these characteristics):
1. ungodly (Jude 1:4; 15)
2. abusing the grace of God as a license for lasciviousness (Jude 1:4)
3. denying the Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 1:4)
4. unbelieving (Jude 1:5)
5. giving themselves over to fornication (Jude 1:7)
6. going after strange flesh, e.g. homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality (Jude 1:7)
7. filthy dreamers who defile the flesh (Jude 1:8)
8. despisers of authority, ignorantly speaking evil against those in office (Jude 1:8-10)
9. corrupting themselves like beasts even in what they know naturally (Jude 1:10)
10. murderous followers of Cain (Jude 1:11)
11. abusing their gifts and office for material gain like Balaam (Jude 1:11)
12. rebellious gainsayers like Korah (Jude 1:11)
13. blasphemers (Jude 1:15)
14. murmurers and complainers (Jude 1:16)
15. walkers after their own lusts (Jude 1:16, 18)
16. capable of making impressive persuasive speeches (Jude 1:16)
17. manipulating and flattering those in power to gain advantage (Jude 1:16)
18. mockers (Jude 1:18)
19. schismatic (Jude 1:19)
20. unspiritual and sensual (Jude 1:19)
5. Jude contrasts their attitude toward authority with the archangel Michael's manner in contending  even with Satan (Jude 1:9).
6. Jude pronounces a curse on them as followers of cursed Cain, Balaam, and Korah and gives analogies to illustrate how cursed they are (Jude 1:11-13).
7. Jude applies Enoch's prophecy of the Lord's judgement and vengeance to them (Jude 1:14-15).
8. Jude reminds us that the apostles also wrote about such people (consider Paul's pastoral epistles, and Peter's general epistles, especially the second; Jude 1:17-18).
9. Jude tells us in contrast to continue building ourselves up in the faith, in prayer, walking in love, and trusting in Christ for mercy and eternal life (Jude 1:20-21).
10. Finally, Jude tells us to rightly distinguish between such reprobate hypocrites and sinning brethren whom we must attempt to save with compassion with great care for the fiery danger to ourselves and the evil pollution of their sin (Jude 1:22-23).
11. Lest we should be alarmed by the apostasy and judgement of God against these reprobate hypocrites, whom we had supposed to be sincere and beloved Christians, Jude ends with a doxology praising God for His ability to preserve us from falling and sanctify us (Jude 1:24-25). This mirrors his opening address to us as those who are being sanctified by God, preserved in Christ, and called, in distinction from the reprobate hypocrites he describes (Jude 1:1-2).

Notice that of the long list of characteristics, some of these are very general and simply necessarily the case: they are ungodly and unbelieving, even though secretly so. Some may only occur after they have perhaps been exposed and admonished: they become schismatic and perhaps later then even openly deny Christ. Others may be ongoing for years before discovered and recognized. What is remarkable is that none of these characteristics are explicitly or essentially doctrinal.

When Jude says that they deny the Lord, he does not mean that they start teaching Arianism or some other Christ-denying heresy. Heretics do deny Christ that way, and other letters speak of such false teachers, but it is not primarily what Jude has in view. He means that they deny the Lord by their evil and hypocritical lives. By abusing the grace of God as a cloak and license for sin, they deny the Lord.

Jude describes these people, not as openly repudiating Christ, but as hidden reefs in our feasts of charity (Jude 1:12). The ancient Christians, similar to today, would have meals of fellowship together, especially for the benefit of the poorer brethren. Jude means that the presence of these hypocrites meant that these meals became as dangerous as navigating a ship around hidden reefs. These reprobates are harmful to others, while also being cleverly concealed. They look like normal clouds, but they carry no water. They look like normal trees but their fruit withers, and really they have no fruit, being twice dead and even uprooted. They swell up and impress like powerful waves, but they foam out their shame. They look like normal stars, but like the planets, they move erratically, not staying in their courses, or like falling meteors, they disappear forever.

We can summarize the sinful characteristics listed above as basically four categories of antinomianism:

1. Sensuality like Sodom (Jude 1:4, 7-8, 10, 16, 18-19)
2. Rebellion like Korah (Jude 1:8-11, 16, 18-19)
3. Avarice like Balaam (Jude 1:11)
4. Hatred like Cain (Jude 1:11)

Any Christian may sin grievously in these general areas of his life, but what makes these hypocrites different is the depth and extent of their sin considering their knowledge of God and their outward hypocritical profession. They pursue these sins with impunity as long as they can get away with it because of their underlying attitude towards God. They behave this way because they fundamentally have no fear of God and are unbelieving. They know the truth, and they can speak very impressively about it, but they do not really love the truth. Having heard and understood the gospel, they infiltrate the church by a false profession and attempt to use the Christian religion as a cloak for their evil.

Compare this with Paul who was formerly an insolent blasphemer and zealous persecutor of the church. He explains that he found forgiveness only because he did so in ignorance and unbelief (I Tim. 1:13). He did not really know what he was doing, like any heathen. But when these hypocrites commit such enormous sins as a lifestyle and do so in hypocrisy over many years while claiming to be a Christian with careful deliberate deceptions through manipulating, flattering, and persuading others, they show themselves to be no different to apostates. That is, by such behaviour, they deny the Lord Jesus Christ, as really and firmly and definitively as an apostate.

This is not like the lamentable falls of David or Peter, though such falls may be as close as a Christian can come to this. Jude refers to the importance of making a distinction and having compassion on some. Astoundingly, for today's sensitive modern church, this means not having compassion on others. No compassion for the followers of Cain, Balaam, Korah, or Sodom in the church today.

Hebrews 6 speaks of apostates, as those who draw back in unbelief, for whom there is then no possibility of being renewed to repentance:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned (Heb. 6:4-8).

Hebrews 10 then speaks of apostates who, having received the knowledge of the truth, continue to sin wilfully and presumptuously, i.e. treating the grace of God as license to sin as Jude describes:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26-29)

These practical antinomians are covenant-breakers, subject to the worst punishment, and have no possibility of forgiveness as there is no sacrifice for their sins. Peter, in the parallel to Jude, says that their end is worse than if they had never joined the church and professed to know Christ at all (II Pet. 2:20-22).

John similarly warns against such antinomian hypocrites, calling these apostates "anti-christs" and children of the devil, lumping them together with those who deny that Jesus is the Christ, and comparing them also with Cain (I John 2:22; 3:12):

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (I John 2:4).

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (I John 2:18-19).

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (I John 3:6-10).

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (I John 3:14-15).

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? (I John 4:20)

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death (I John 5:16-17).

John agrees with Jude here, that a distinction must be made. John tells us that some must be prayed for who have not sinned a sin unto death, as Jude says, we must have compassion on some. But John and Jude are not dealing with merely speculative or hypothetical situations when they describe those for whom there is no possibility of salvation, and more, whose salvation must not be sought inasmuch as God will not forgive their sins. These apostates, who deny Christ by their antinomian hypocrisy in the church, have committed the unforgiveable sin by blaspheming the Spirit.

Charitable and compassionate church members ought not to be wasting their time and offending God by praying for such people. Well-meaning and conscientious church office-bearers ought not to be wasting their time and offending God by trying to bring them to repentance when God has said that He will not renew them to repentance.

When such a hypocrite has been exposed, for example, as a serial killer, or a sexual predator, or a scheming rebel, or a greedy embezzler, so that he can be plainly seen to have denied Jesus Christ, such a person must ordinarily be viewed as an apostate. He is a candidate for anathemas, not loving church discipline (I Cor. 16:22). And Scripture gives us specific examples of such people.

An excellent example is Alexander the coppersmith, regarding whom Paul, far from praying for his repentance, prays that the Lord rewards him for his evil works (II Tim. 4:14). Paul prays this not out of spite, but out of a knowledge of Alexander's reprobation. Further, this knowledge was not by divine inspiration, but deduced simply from Alexander's apostasy. Not that he necessarily no longer claimed to be a Christian, but that he blasphemed like Hymenaeus (who claimed the resurrection was past already) and did much evil to the apostle Paul (note, Jude's characteristic of rebellion against those in authority). Paul does not tell Timothy to go a give Alexander a gentle pastoral visit to try again to admonish him to repent, but rather, he simply warns him to beware of this person.

In summary, Scripture no where teaches that the judgement of charity is a command to be naive. Rather we are given very many detailed warnings and examples, exhorting us to judge both charitably and righteously, echoing the principle the Lord taught us:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16).

Church Marks vs Church Purity

Augustine arguing with donatists by Charles-André van Loo, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In response to Rome's claims, at the time of the Reformation, to be the one true church outside of which there was no salvation, the Reformation defined simple objective criteria by which the true church could be recognized. The Belgic Confession gives us a helpful example of this:

The marks, by which the true church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself [which implies also the positive responsibility to join].

This gives us three marks, with a simple summary. The summary is that for the true church, Christ is acknowledged as the only Head, especially in the subjection of all things to the authority of Scripture. The three marks in particular are:

1. Gospel preaching
2. Administration of sacraments
3. Church discipline

In highlighting these three in particular, the Reformed were taking a stance that the true church ought to be recognized by its institutions, so that any institute claiming to be the true church without these three marks (e.g. Rome) could be rejected and those with these three could be accepted. The confession makes the point that these three were instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ. The three marks are institutional marks and therefore more clearly objective, but also these three are the key institutional forms which are the ordinary (and official) means in our salvation (other important but non-official means, such as fellowship with believers, prayer and Scripture reading/study are not mentioned because the church institute is not required for these).

These three marks represent the benefits of the church institute to the believer from Christ by His Spirit, underscoring the need for believers not to separate themselves from these means as one should not cut himself off from the means whereby he receives his daily bread. In pointing out these three marks, the Reformed confession draws the proper connection between membership in the church and salvation so that Rome's claim about no salvation outside the church of Rome is exposed as empty and meaningless.

By gospel preaching, we are instructed as to the content of our faith, and admonished to faith and repentance. Christ comes and speaks to us in the preaching. By the sacraments, we are given visible signs and seals to assure and strengthen our faith. Christ comes and shows us in the sacraments. By discipline, we are brought back to the right path when we stray. Christ comes and corrects us in discipline. Christ is present in living fellowship and saving power through these means.

The Reformed also distinguished the recognition of organized local congregations as institutional manifestations of the true church from the recognition of people as Christians or members of the church:

With respect to those, who are members of the church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Saviour, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbour, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him."

Significantly, the confession does not suggest looking for members of the church in order to recognize the true church. In fact the article opens with a reminder about hypocrites in the church: "But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the church with the good, yet are not of the church, though externally in it." Those whom we think may be members of the church may only be external members, that is, hypocrites. But where we find the three marks, we have found what Christ instituted for our good in our salvation and may enjoy the presence of Christ in these means, even if all around us turn out to be mere hypocrites.

This was one of the important lessons that may be derived from the sad history of the Donatist schism. To grossly simplify, one of the key issues in this controversy was that the Donatists claimed that the ordinances instituted by Christ were worthless if administered by an ungodly man (or by extension, a man who later turned out to be ungodly). They had in mind office-bearers or ministers who had compromised their confession of Christ in times of persecution. Whether such men ought to have been permitted to retain their office, or be restored to their office, is a secondary issue for our purposes here. A church may have failures in church discipline without altogether losing that third mark. Augustine's genius was to realize that the efficacy of the official means of salvation in the church (preaching, sacraments, and discipline) did not strictly-speaking depend on the holiness or moral uprightness of the office-bearer administering these means.

This is not to excuse some of the errors that Augustine made (or perpetuated/developed) in his doctrine of the church at this time, or to excuse office-bearers who bring disrepute to their office, to the church, and to Christ. Such office-bearers ought to be disciplined when their faults are uncovered, and deposed if they have shown or made themselves unfit for office. Also, moral failings often work through into a minister's (weak or false) preaching, or an elder's (lack of or corrupt) discipline. Nevertheless, the means themselves, if faithfully administered, retain their benefit to Christ's flock, since their nature is not dependent on the man administering them.

But this also means that the presence of the three marks in a local congregation does not in itself imply that the office-bearers are not hypocrites, or that the members of that congregation are Christians. That the confession gives separate criteria as the marks of Christians also indicates this. In other words, there is no inherent correlation between the three marks and church purity, spirituality, or holiness. This is worth emphasis because the confession speaks repeatedly about the purity of the three marks. Why is the purity of the three marks important, and why is this distinct from church purity?

The purity of the three marks concerns the faithfulness in which they are administered, and has therefore a direct correlation with their potential benefit for God's people. The more pure these marks are therefore, the more important it is for the believer not to separate himself from them, and the easier it is for the believer (ordinarily) to recognize them. This is distinct from church purity because the purity of the marks does not depend directly upon the spirituality of the members of the church. Of course, in the ordinary case, an unfaithful, unholy, and unspiritual church will typically lose the marks very quickly. But there are various reasons why the marks may linger or be administered even when a church as a whole becomes unfaithful. The reasons may be basically the same as the motivations of a hypocrite.

Particularity in the purity of the marks may become a matter of pride for a church, just as the Pharisee who boasts that he pays tithes of all manner of herbs. All the while, just like the hypocrite who secretly hates God and his neighbour, they neglect weightier matters as long as their performance puts on a good show. Christ had much to say about these religious hypocrites:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matt. 23:23-33)

Prior to the captivity in Babylon (and afterwards, leading up to the Pharisees), Judah, in contrast to Samaria which did not have such purity in the outward forms or institutions, practiced this show-religion. Isaiah decries this evil:

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isa. 1:11-17)

Christ's warning for us as individuals is also for churches:

In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:1-3)

Some of the letters in the book of Revelation are addressing churches with precisely this kind of evil, and Christ threatens to take away their candlestick. The church that boasts in the purity of its marks, ought to take heed how its purity of life should correspond with these marks. Else, God who abases the proud and lifts up the humble, will remove the source of pride and replace it with everlasting shame.

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. (Rev. 3:1-6)

The church of Sardis had a name that it was living. We might say it exhibited the three marks very clearly and purely, and its hypocritical members made a convincing show. But Christ walks amidst the candlesticks, and He says it is, as a whole, to be considered spiritually dead because its works were not perfect before God. The church had some things that remained, which needed held fast to and strengthened. There were some also who had not defiled their garments. The rest had. Those that did not repent and overcome would be blotted out of the book of life. So much for their boasts of church membership in such a supposedly living (or "pure") church. But those who have an ear are called to hear and watch and repent.

The church of Ephesus was not in nearly so bad a condition, and receives various commendations, including for their works, but they had forsaken their first love. The spiritual problem was not that they had preached poorly or administered the sacraments incorrectly (by all accounts, both Sardis and Ephesus were blameless in outward forms). Ephesus was even commended for their discipline of false apostles and Nicolaitans. But like Sardis, Ephesus is warned that unless they repent, Christ would come swiftly, taking them by surprise, to remove their candlestick. The candlestick in this vision is what most closely relates to the three marks we have been examining.

Purity in the three marks is important, and believers must join and not separate from the church which bears these marks, despite the presence of many other faults, but this is no substitute for church purity. Knowing all the right theology is no substitute for personal holiness in a walk of daily repentance and faith. A church having the best doctrinal positions on all points of dogma is not any whit purer because of that, than a hypocrite is purer than a heathen just because he knows the Bible from cover to cover. May we therefore pray:

Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (Psalm 51:14-19)

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thess. 5:23)

The Harmony of Doxology and Praxeology in Duty-Faith

I recently asked someone "who is the subject of our believing?" and "do we believe unto salvation?" because I was not sure they were comfortable with the biblical answers to those questions ("we believe" and "saved by grace through faith"). This person seemed reluctant to respond, as if the biblical answers to those questions would inherently conflict with the truths that all glory belongs to God, and that our believing (both the will and the act) is the necessary fruit of the effectual work of God's Spirit in us. My concern is that rather than pitting truths that Scripture teaches against each other, we reconcile and systematize the truth and confess it as a whole, not favouring one at the expense of another.

Noah and the ark is a good example. Scripture clearly teaches that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and that God saved Noah by His grace. Scripture also teaches that by faith Noah built an ark to the saving of his house (Heb. 11:7). How do we reconcile these so that we confess both in harmony and clarity?

The building of the ark by the hand of Noah was part of the necessary manner in which God had determined saved them, and the ark was an instrument (necessary according to God's plan). Therefore God worked effectually in Noah both to will and to do, so that Noah built the ark. Since God worked in Noah, the glory for Noah's willing and Noah's doing must be attributed to God's work in Noah's heart. If that is the case, then all glory for Noah's work, and the fruit of it (the ark), is God's, and all glory for salvation through the ark is God's. Then we need not fear saying with Scripture that Noah built the ark.

In reluctance to give the hearty biblical answer to these questions, apparently concerned that the answers would somehow not attribute all glory to God, this person instead elevated my initial concern by asking me "who is responsible for our believing?" God is responsible for the work He does in our hearts which necessarily and effectually causes us to believe (both our will and our act). We are responsible for our believing. That we are responsible for the duty of believing is evident in that we are commanded to believe, and we are judged for the sin of unbelief. And we all ought to be aware that denying that faith is a duty is the most basic and clear form of hyper-Calvinism.

We ought to be more fearful of falling into that error (clearly condemned by Scripture and the Reformed confessions) than simply making statements that Scripture itself is unashamed to make, such as "Noah built the ark" and "we believe" and "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness". Where appropriate, where we think such statements may be misunderstood (e.g. if talking to an Arminian), we may add clarification to those statements (just as we would clarify that "we believe" if we said "all glory belongs to God" when talking to a hyper-Calvinist).

But we may not accuse or attack people if they do not clarify something exactly to the extent that we would in every situation. In pedagogy it is simply not possible to explain everything all at once. This is why we take a full year or more to go through the Heidelberg Catechism. It's not possible to fit everything into one sermon. There is a lot of content to our (objective) faith, which we must learn and grow in over time - holding the truth together, not raising one statement in conflict with others, but understood as a consistent systematic whole.

A teacher must build, and they must build in a certain order, and step by step, building upon what was laid down previously, sometimes belabouring points that a congregation is weak on, sometimes taking small steps, and being careful not to take too many steps all at once. We cannot condemn them if they don't fully repeat a step they taught in the previous lesson, nor may we cling to one particular lesson and refuse to hear the next. And each lesson will have a different emphasis, so that as a whole, all of the truth is emphasized in its place. We must not ignore and discard last week's sermon when we hear this week's sermon, but we must reconcile these together. And if we cannot reconcile them, we ought to ask others for help, up to and including asking the teacher, because if the teacher cannot reconcile these, then it is quite possible there is some error present which must be uncovered. If the teacher is building carefully, it should be easy to see how all these things are reconciled, but not all teachers are as skilful or use the same method, and as listeners we have to be patient and charitable.

Paul's letter to the Romans is a good example. He emphasizes the glory of God at the end of chapter 11. It is not that he has ignored it up to this point, but he has been building, so that when all these points come together, he can emphasize the glory of God in relation to what has gone before in its place. But he also doesn't stop there, he immediately moves on to practical application (chapters 12-16). There is no true doxology without proper praxeology, but each in its place, and each related to each other in harmony. This is why Calvin's big issue in "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" was that Rome had corrupted the right worship of God. His concern for doxology meant that he was necessarily concerned about praxeology. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the church to preach beautifully and wondrously about the glory of God, and never to preach about how we must therefore glorify Him in everything. Sadly, hyper-Calvinists dive headlong into this hypocrisy when they deny duty-faith.

Evidence of the Holy Spirit in Us

What is the evidence of the inner work of the Holy Spirit in us? How do we know that we have truly been born again? That our profession is not simply a hypocritical facade but a true confession? There are well-trodden old paths since the Reformation in this crucial area from which we ought to learn very carefully.

Canons of Dordt, Head I, Art. 12:

"The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as [1] a true faith in Christ, [2] filial fear, [3] a godly sorrow for sin, [4] a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc."

Note that these fundamental things are internal and are not directly observable by others (which ought to commend to us the judgement of charity), though they ought to and will produce the fruit of a changed walk of life. But no-one ought to doubt his election who has these fruits in his soul, and yet does not see such progress in his life as he hopes for (in fact, he ought to be encouraged by such hope and dissatisfaction with his current progress).

More wisdom from the original "five points of Calvinism", this time from article 16 in the same head of doctrine:

"Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavour after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ, efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires, devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause have they to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation, who, though they seriously desire to be turned to God, to please him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful God has promised that he will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this doctrine is justly terrible to those, who, regardless of God and of the Savior Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world, and the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not seriously converted to God."

Again from head V on the certainty of the perseverance of the saints (Art. 10):

"This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to, or independent of the Word of God; but springs from [1] faith in God's promises, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort; from [2] the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit, that we are children and heirs of God, Romans 8:16; and lastly, from [3] a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience, and to perform good works."

Having this foundational persuasion and assurance of election, the forgiveness of our sins, and of our perseverance to the end, we are encouraged and emboldened to fight our sins in confidence of the mercy of God toward us and of His help and grace to strengthen and preserve us. Then as we bring forth the good fruit of a godly life, we keep ourselves from doubts and falls which would interrupt the exercise of our faith, and in this way we build ourselves up and are strengthened in our precious faith attending diligently upon the means of faith (including the official means of preaching and sacraments, but not neglecting either the other means such as personal Bible-reading and corporate Bible study, private and corporate prayer, fellowship with the saints, etc. along with avoiding things harmful to our faith, such all manner of grievous sins, impenitence, worldliness, idleness, fellowship with the ungodly, etc.). This is the manner of God-worked preservation in us. Articles 12 and 13 of the same head teach us:

"This certainty of perseverance, however, is so far from exciting in believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them carnally secure, that on the contrary, it is the real source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering, and in confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God: so that the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incentive to the serious and constant practice of gratitude and good works, as appears from the testimonies of Scripture, and the examples of the saints."

"Neither does renewed confidence or persevering produce licentiousness, or a disregard to piety in those who are recovering from backsliding; but it renders them much more careful and solicitous to continue in the ways of the Lord, which he hath ordained, that they who walk therein may maintain an assurance of persevering, lest by abusing his fatherly kindness, God should turn away his gracious countenance from them, to behold which is to the godly dearer than life: the withdrawing thereof is more bitter than death, and they in consequence hereof should fall into more grievous torments of conscience."

The full Canons of Dordt, written as an explanation of points of doctrine from the Reformed (Belgic) Confession and Reformed (Heidelberg) Catechism to resolve the Arminian controversy (who denied the possibility of assurance of perseverance), and accepted ecumenically by all the Reformed churches of that day (e.g. British, Dutch, French, German, etc.): https://www.prca.org/cd_index.html

A Plea for Creeds: https://cprc.co.uk/pamphlets2/pleaforcreeds/

Three Witnesses in Earth

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labours of my hands
can fulfill thy law's demands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Saviour, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee.

- Augustus Toplady, who understood pretty well what he was writing about!

I think I should add that Toplady's allusion to the water and the blood as a pledge of the effects of salvation is the signification given to these in Scripture (cf. I John 5:8, and Calvin's helpful commentary on it and verse 6, for example). In Scripture the water and the blood from Christ's side are highlighted specifically as witnesses (or signs), and this alludes to their use as agents of atonement and cleansing in the Old Testament rites. That these agents should flow from the crucified Christ is identified by John as a testimony that all our salvation is to be sought from Christ, the fountain of these saving agents, blood which purges guilt, and water which cleanses pollution.

John adds a third witness, which is particular to born-again Christians, the Spirit, which he speaks at length about in his whole epistle, as distinguishing true Christians from false professors (even lawless antichrists) not only by the inner testimony of the Spirit which cultivates and informs our faith as we hear the word, but also from the loving character of the Spirit as holy, so that fellowship with God is a holy fellowship of love, enjoyed in the way of walking in holiness and love (which John calls "light" as opposed to the blindness of impenitence or even apostasy, a darkness in which we do not see God in Christ through faith but which interrupts or prevents faith), such that those who live in hatred, and are careless regarding the law really do not have this Spirit. They can see the witness of the water and blood, but they can only see the witness of the Spirit in the lives of others who are genuine Christians walking in continuing, persevering repentance.

John also refers to three witnesses in heaven, a verse cited by our Belgic Confession in support of the Trinity, a verse also cited by various church fathers throughout history, even if evidential support is lacking in the more mainstream Greek manuscript traditions. There are a lot of very poor arguments made on both sides of this controversy, but if you are interested, here is a helpful treatment of evidence for and against (I also highly recommend the simple treatment of internal evidence which Matthew Henry's commentary provides). He does argue some points for the Comma Johanneum, far more strenuously than I would be prepared to, since I think I do not attach so much importance to it compared to other much clearer passages which prove the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. As far as explanation for its omission goes, if I have to speculate, I'd agree with an accidental omission due to the similar beginning and ending of verses 7 and 8 (relatively common haplography), and that omission perhaps being subsequently reinforced rather than corrected due to prevailing Arian bias in the eastern (Greek-speaking) church. As a standalone proof-text for the Trinity, it is only supporting evidence at best, weak compared to the much clearer and stronger arguments, such as showing how Scripture distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct Persons, and showing how the divine names, attributes, works, and worship are attributed to all three.

Perhaps this explains why it was not quoted as often as some would like to imagine in the Arian controversy, especially since the Arians would have no problem saying that these are three witnesses in heaven which agree in one (though admittedly, and significantly perhaps, the little preposition "in" is omitted from verse 7 regarding the witnesses in heaven), in the same sense that the blood, water, and Spirit are three witnesses which agree in one. As a standalone proof-text it does not so strongly emphasize the deity of the three Persons, or the essential unity of the Three. Of course, this verse not being present in many Greek manuscripts would also explain why it was not quoted so often.

But the idea of three witnesses, or "two or three witnesses" is another allusion to the Mosaic law, in which every word in judgement was to be established by two or three witnesses. John is very concerned with this concept of witness and the trustworthiness of a witness, in his Gospel account as in this epistle. Three witnesses is doubly more sure than the agreement of two witnesses, so John adds the third witness in earth. And if we ought to receive such witnesses in earth, how much more the witnesses in heaven? John makes exactly this argument in verse 9 (which incidentally does not make as much sense with the Comma Johanneum omitted). John records the witness of John the Baptist to God's witness at Christ's baptism, though he does not record the baptism itself, as the three other (synoptic) Gospel accounts do. He also records this when Christ recognizes that the time of his crucifixion and the salvation of the Gentiles is at hand:

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. (John 12:27-33)

Further he records Christ's own answer to the Pharisees who objected to His witness and refused it on unreasonable grounds. Christ's answer makes the same argument that John makes in his epistle (his entire epistle is a little echo and underscoring of his Gospel account), that He has witnesses in earth, he has the testimony of John the Baptist, but the Author of Truth cannot be attested to by mere sinful men, though they are holy prophets, though unbelievers readily and regularly receive the witness of sinful men who bear witness of themselves. Instead, and incomparably greater, He has the witness of God, both in the works for which His Father sent Him, and the voice of His Father, which they had not heard or received though God spoke clearly at His baptism, as well as from Mount Sinai and at other times. The unbelieving heart cannot receive this witness, instead they absurdly claim, "It thundered." The unbeliever may search the Scriptures, but in blindness not seeing that the Father has borne witness of the incarnate Son throughout.

So, although John attaches great importance to the signs of the water and blood, and the testimony of the one who saw it and bear record of it, ultimately we have a greater witness, that we may believe:

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. (John 19:32-35)

By the witness of the Spirit in our own hearts, we have that three-fold testimony from heaven, not only the witnesses on earth that agree in one. We have the witness of God in our own selves. So we can consider the book-ends of John's epistle which describes the life with God that we now have and know and enjoy in Christ through the Spirit.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (1 John 5:9-11)

The one who has this witness in himself, is one who has fellowship with God, and the only kind of fellowship with God is one in which we are doing God's will:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)

In contrast to this, the one who claims to know God and have fellowship with God, to be super spiritual, even far above others, perhaps claiming to know the abounding of God's grace because of the depths of his sinful walk even far more than others, while walking in hatred, does in fact not know God, but is necessarily blinded in his impenitence, just as much as the one who outright rejects the testimony of Christ:

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. (1 John 2:9)

The record of the Spirit, is in agreement with the water and the blood. The one who has the witness of the Spirit, is the one who truly knows and enjoys the life of love and fellowship with God, the one who is both cleansed by the water, and reconciled by the blood. All supposed spiritual knowledge which is separated from a life of love and holiness is not the true light in which we enjoy fellowship with God. That's the significance of the sign of the water and the blood in their agreement with the witness of the Spirit.

Legalism and motivation

Reformed Christians speak so much and so highly about gratitude for salvation as a motivation for Christian living that some might be tempted to think that gratitude was the only motivation for Christians. You may have even heard it claimed that legalists are people who keep the laws for motives other than gratitude. But what is legalism?

There are basically two ways to be a legalist. One is by pursuing justification by self-righteousness. The other is by making up laws and standards beyond what is written, usually with an emphasis on outward observation, and often as part of a pursuit of self-righteousness, and typically also as a means to condemn others in order to make oneself seem more righteous than them (again, often because of a pursuit of self-righteousness). This second kind of legalist shows that at the very least their practice is contrary to justification by faith alone, in that they attempt to puff themselves up by their invented standards, while simultaneously looking down on others.

Christ never condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, rather He condemned 1) their pursuit of self-righteousness, 2) their hypocrisy, 3) their unjust condemnation of others, 4) their elevating of their traditions as if they were law, 5) their setting aside the law by their tradition, 6) their focus on merely outward observance, 7) their wrong priorities, straining at gnats and swallowing camels, carefully tithing mint and cumin, while neglecting justice and mercy, and placing temporary ceremonial laws (or ceremonial observances connected to moral laws) above eternal moral law.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23)

Grace fulfills the law, so that we are freed from its condemnation, so that we may keep it. Grace also gives us far more reason to keep the law than others, and also frees us from the power of sin in us so that we actually can begin to keep the law from the heart.

Gratitude is a very powerful motivator for a Christian, and the proper response to the Gospel of grace (how we are delivered from our misery), but it is by no means the only motivation. For example, should a Christian not be motivated by the glory of God? Sola Deo Gloria? What about the motivation of love for God? Or do we only love Him because we are grateful? Or do we love Him because in His love for us He has revealed Himself to us and given us a new heart that seeks after Him and delights in His goodness? Are we motivated also by love for our neighbour, or do we love our neighbour only because we are grateful for the forgiveness of our sins? Are we motivated by wisdom, the beginning of which is the fear of God? Are we motivated by deep concern for our neighbour's salvation (Paul was!)? Are we motivated by humility, knowing our place before God as His servants? Are we motivated by joy? By other Christians who spur us on? Are we motivated by our hatred for sin, not merely of others, but especially of our own? Are we motivated by the failures of others? Are we motivated by the wickedness of this world? Are we motivated by the growing cold and apostasy of many? Are we motivated by having our affections in heaven, not on earth? Are we motivated by love for the church? Are we motivated by peace and by patience? Are we motivated by sufferings? Are we motivated by looking for a city that has foundations? Are we motivated by our blessed hope? Wisdom finds motivations everywhere!

Also consider the Canons of Dordt, Head V, Article 13:

"Neither does renewed confidence or persevering produce licentiousness, or a disregard to piety in those who are recovering from backsliding; but it renders them much more careful and solicitous to continue in the ways of the Lord, which he hath ordained, that they who walk therein may maintain an assurance of persevering, **lest by abusing his fatherly kindness, God should turn away his gracious countenance from them**, to behold which is to the godly dearer than life: the withdrawing thereof is more bitter than death, and they in consequence hereof should fall into more grievous torments of conscience."

This article speaks about the motivation of the restored repentant sinner, that he never again wants to experience His father's chastisement, or lose sight of His father's smiling countenance over him.

As father raising children, it is important to me that my children enjoy fellowship with me and can see my love and delight in them, when they are walking in the right way. When they go astray, they have to know that I am terribly displeased with their behaviour, and that I can't enjoy fellowship with them in their disobedience, or delight in their disobedience. I hope that this gives them strong motivation to continue in my delight over them, in the way of careful obedience. And when I read Scripture, this is how I see God has always dealt with His people, and I also see that He deals with me this way.

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." (Hebrews 12:5-6)

His chastisement of me is very gracious and very merciful, but I don't want to walk in the way of His chastisement, but in the way of His delight. Fear of His chastisement motivates me, and desire of His delight motivates me. And yes, gratitude motivates me, also simply knowing who God is, that He is worthy, and my Father. I hope that God would use everything to motivate me in the right way! I need all the motivation I can get!