Skip to main content

God's Sovereignty and the Joy of the Lord

A leading theme of Philippians is joy. “Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord” (Phil. 3:1. See also 4:4). In 3:1-11, the cross and the resurrection of Jesus has made it possible for Paul to experience joy in three areas of his redemption: self-denial, justification, and sanctification. 

He finds joy in the denial of his linage, nationality, pedigree, education, and social status in order that he might embrace Christ. His practice of Judaism could only produce a “blameless” life (Phil. 3:6; a life in which no man can point the finger at you and find fault), while knowing “Christ Jesus my Lord” (v. 8) has produced a righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 

He has joy in justification for he recognizes that despite his unfitness for heaven due to his sin, the Lord has fulfilled the requirements of the Law, including its curse; all of which is credited to Paul on the basis of faith, which itself is a gift of God (Phil. 3:9). 

And he has joy in sanctification. For he acknowledges that just as he is wretched before God in his justification, dependent upon him for grace, so also he is wretched before God in his sanctification, dependent also upon him for grace. So it is not difficult for Paul to live the Christian life. Nay, it is impossible! Just as it is impossible to cause one’s own spiritual rebirth, it is impossible to cause one’s own sanctification leading to holiness. It is all by grace. Where I am going to get the strength to overcome sin, to live fully for Christ, to find the courage for evangelism? The answer is not to resolve to try harder.  To do so is to set up one’s own competition and no one who is in a ring fighting an opponent has time for joy. It the knowledge that the Lord has accomplished our justification, and is sovereignly accomplishing even our sanctification, that prompts our joy in him. 

In what specific context does Paul know the joy of the Lord? In suffering (Phil. 3:10)!  But if all Paul knows is the “fellowship of his suffering,” then there is no basis for joy. For without the historical fact of the resurrection we are of all men most to be pitied. Rather it is only in light of the power of the resurrection that the fellowship of his sufferings is not merely bearable, but a springboard for joy. The knowledge that the Lord is in control of human history helps us say that “momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (1 Cor. 4:17).


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…