When London Flooded - Dream On

I will never forget the time when after days of severe weather, the River Thames burst its banks and much of Central London was flooded. In fact the water level rose so high, that other than by boat, the only alternative way to get around was to swim. And it was then I saw a young female in distress. She was close to my age, looked plump, had shortish curly hair and wore spectacles. And she was crying for help.

I managed to reach her, and thanks to my own training as a life-saver back in the early seventies, I successfully towed her to safety. Safe on a building, a high ledge or area of high ground, she was weeping with gratitude for saving her life and I held her tight, consoling and comforting her.

It must have been some time later, when the streets of London had returned to normal, that I had found out where she worked. Longing to see her again with high hopes of a relationship leading to marriage, I located the building and having entered, I rushed up several flights of stairs. I then entered her office, a rather plush environment. There she was. It was definitely her, the young woman I rescued earlier from drowning. But this time she looked different. Although still wearing glasses, her hair was longer and straighter, and no longer plump, she had slimmed to become a beautiful woman in her own right.

She turned to see me standing at the door. But instead of rushing over to greet me as was expected, she remained at her desk and just turned to look at me, without smiling. She then literally turned her nose up on me before resuming her work. Crushingly disappointed, I understood her message perfectly well. With myself from a working-class background, she perceived me to be beneath herself, a social inferior. The type of man she was looking for had to be one holding a degree and with a high-income earning profession. Despite saving her life I wasn't good enough for her. It was as simple as that.

Feeling defeated and humiliated, amidst bustling traffic and pedestrians, I sauntered along Millbank, then into Abingdon Street, approaching Parliament Square. How I wished that the streets of London were still under water! Life seemed much more fulfilling during the crisis. I turned to look towards the world-famous Government building. On a level of paving between it and myself were two puddles, each between 15-18 inches across, and no more than half inch deep. Those two puddles, each quite close to each other, were the only remnant of the flood which earlier inundated the city. I stood to look at the two puddles and wished to turn back the clock. Then finding myself in bed at my bachelor's pad, I realised that it was all a dream. But a dream from which not only did I wake up remembering in full detail but still fully remembered vividly more than thirty years later.

Yet the dream still has an affect on me to this day. But it's certainly not a new phenomenon. In the Bible, the Pharaoh king of Egypt had two dreams, one after another but each carrying the same line of meaning. The king was disturbed by it all and Joseph, who had a reputation for interpreting dreams, explained their meaning to Pharaoh. Like with me, he must have remembered those dreams for the rest of his life. Then there was the famous one experienced by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He hadn't been on the throne for that long, but his dream of a giant statue fully demolished by a moving boulder sent shivers down his spine, and demanded a genuine interpreter who would not take advantage of his circumstance. With the prophet Daniel revealing the dream and its interpretation, he too must have remembered his dream for the rest of his life.

Then there was the other Joseph, the husband of Mary and the adopted father of Jesus Christ. Joseph had several dreams, four in all, the first three telling him what to do and the fourth was a warning. The first one was for him to go ahead and marry Mary, despite his belief in her unfaithfulness. The second was a command for him and his family to flee to Egypt, and the third to return to his homeland of Israel. The fourth was a warning not to resettle in Judea but to return to his home town of Nazareth. No doubt, Joseph too must have remembered all those dreams for the rest of his life. And furthermore, we can read about all those dreams thousands of years later.

A dream led Joseph and his family here.

Whether my dream, in the mid eighties, of London flooded was a message from God or not, I can't be dogmatic either way. But it seemed to have been packed with meaning. There was this woman in distress, unable to save herself. Then I swam to her and towed her to safety. But in order for me to do so, she had to submit to me fully, and allow me to do all the rescuing. There was nothing she could do to earn her safety, nor could she help me either. I had to do it all.

Beginning to look familiar?

Because that is what the Son of God had to do to bring me, and all other believers, to safety. Like her I was lost in the sea of sin, and like her, unable to earn or work towards my salvation. All I could do was submit to his rescue, which I did by believing. But as my dream continued, what happened after that? Apparently, she thought so highly of herself that she had forgotten the favour I bestowed on her. Could this be an illustration of the attitude some believers have over others, found in many churches of our day? Because all the churches of true believers are pictured as the Temple, the Body and the Bride of Jesus Christ, in effect any insult or misdemeanant shown towards a Christian brother or group of believers strikes at the heart of God himself.

Is it a crying, crying shame that I don't come across verbally as a very intelligent, cultured, or a well-educated, gentlemanly Christian? Has it always been this way since I started attending church in 1974? Furthermore, does it matter at all? Does it bring honour to God if I'm seen through the subconsciousness of other Christians as "somewhere down there" instead of "up here with us" in their way of thinking? But can things be different "behind the scenes"? May I show you just one example?

Lately I have been raving about the threefold pillar of salvation. Acquittal, Imputation, and Eternal Security. Did you in the past ask yourself whether you agree with this concept and if so, asked yourself where I got this idea from? Who was the enlightened preacher or guest speaker who expounded this concept? Or what is the title and who is the author of the book I have been reading about this?

Answer: Nobody at the pulpit or at the front of the church meeting has ever brought up such a concept. And furthermore, in the past forty years as a believer, I cannot remember reading any books directly expounding such an idea. The theory of a threefold gift of salvation given to every believer was a result of studying Scripture, especially in Paul's letter to the Romans. And although Paul himself might have been unaware, the Holy Spirit which inspired such Scriptures knew perfectly well that one day Rome will be the home of the Vatican, the headquarters of a worldwide Church which will teach a false gospel of infused righteousness, a faith-works salvation which can be easily lost by the believer on just one "mortal" sin. So the Holy Spirit, foreknowing all this, inspired Paul to write a thesis directed to Rome and its people. It was from these studies that I became aware of the threefold pillar of salvation. I now fervently believe that Paul's letter was divinely inspired to counter the present teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is a bit like Isaac Newton watching an apple fall from a tree. He then wrote a thesis about gravity. Newton didn't invent gravity - it was fully functional long, long before he was even born. What happened was that he discovered the reality of it. His theory was widely read because he was seen as a very clever man and therefore his views were authentic and respected. Maybe, coming from a working class background, my views can be easily disregarded. And sometimes I feel that they are.

Look, No Tie! Isaac Newton

So that was why I wrote about this topic on this week's blog. After reading of three separate incidents, all occurring within a week. One was about the culture of "No Brown in Town". That is, a very promising candidate was refused an offer of a banking career in the City because he was wearing brown shoes at the interview. Another promising candidate was told that his tie was "too loud". He didn't get the job either. Neither would the candidate wearing a shirt with a breast pocket would be hired. The second incident involved a group of Etonian students having flown to Russia to visit its President, Vladimir Putin. These students, dressed to the hilt in suit and tie, were all oozing the kind of self-confidence prospective British employers are looking for, according to one journalist. Not confidence in the assurance of God's love and mercy, but confidence in their own intelligence, education, and self-merit. The third issue was the rather idiosyncratic British custom of not dining before seven o'clock in the evening, according to the upper-middle classes. According to the Media, only the "lower classes" eat before seven - even if eating earlier was better for health reasons - to which the former would have taken offence.

It is those petty customs, cultural, and daft-sounding ideas which, to my belief, weakens the church of its divine testimony. Rather, by looking at each other under the Shadow of the Cross, which itself will destroy every barrier and prejudice among believers, would result in greater benefits for all.

On The Table, Not Underneath It.

Of all the blessings of retirement, alongside time spent on gym workouts, swimming, Starbucks, and jigsaw puzzles, is taking long walks in the morning. I am very fortunate where I live. Rather than in a city, where sidewalks are hemmed in between buildings on one side and constantly roaring traffic on the other, instead our back garden gate opens onto one of a network of off-road footpaths, on which I can walk for miles without ever encountering traffic. A good length of the walk passes through woods as a day-hike trail, or in Queen's English, the Rambler's Route, which is also the ideal path for dog-walkers and an occasional off-road cyclist. 

And a perfect occasion for meditation. As with other times, thinking about spiritual things, which is high on the meditative agenda. Like the moment I had a vision of a dining table covered with a white tablecloth and adorned with many good things. This has come as a result of asking myself whether on this blogging page I put too much emphasis on the grace of God and neglecting the part about the works God has planned for us as believers. Perhaps I can be accused of "easy believism" - a label I am prepared to accept. Because in reality there is no other option when it comes to salvation. It can be rather alarming when a man inspired by the Holy Spirit writes that for anyone who keeps the Law perfectly - then stumbles slightly at just one point - is guilty of breaking the whole Law. Blimey! What hope is there for any of us otherwise?

Like the true story someone once told me back in 1979. These two fellows from our church flew to America for a holiday during the Summer of that year to stay at the home of the host they knew. On one particular occasion, the host was driving rather fast along the freeway with his two guests when he was stopped by a police car.

"What was the speed you were driving?" asked the officer.

"Er sixty, I think."

"And what is the legal speed limit?"

"Fifty miles an hour." the driver answered sheepishly.

"Indeed. That is why we are giving you a ticket. By the way, what is your occupation?"

"I'm a post-grad student."

"Huh-huh, and what are you aiming to be?"

"Er-ha-hum, I am studying Theology."

The driver received his ticket and had to pay his fine. Despite his calling, he had broken the whole law, and therefore appeared in Court alongside thieves, murderers, fraudsters and other transgressors. He broke the whole law by one minor offence. And that is regardless of how much theology he was learning and how many times a week he prayed in the college chapel. He broke the law and a penalty was demanded by justice. Or for someone else to pay on his behalf. If that did happen, all he had to do was to accept the atonement on his behalf and he will be free from the penalty of that particular offense. Before the substitutionary payment was made, the driver could not work to earn his reprieve, because the offence was committed and a penalty was demanded. After the payment was made, justice was satisfied and the offender could not add anything else to make it more satisfied, neither could he work to avoid undoing the pardon he has received.

Throughout my forty-plus years as a believer, I have come across sermons and writings about what Jesus had spoken about in Matthew 18:21-35. It's about the unforgiving servant. Arminian Christians had used this parable as proof-text that salvation can be lost if a believer refuses to forgive the offence committed by a fellow believer. The story is about a king who was owed ten thousand talents by one of his servants. The servant couldn't pay it back, so he fell on his knees to plead. He was forgiven and set free from his debt. Now this guy should have been so happy to have danced through the whole palace, even hugging and kissing his fellow servants. Instead, he found someone who owed him the equivalent of a few quid, and instead of releasing him as he had been released, he had the poor fellow thrown into prison. The other servants were distressed over this, and reported back to the king. The master then had the first servant thrown into prison to be tortured, until he paid back all that he owed.

But this story does not teach the loss of salvation as many would believe. For starters, nothing about the Gospel is mentioned. Nothing about salvation or the redemption from sin and the receiving of eternal life. Nothing about regeneration. Also, no mention about being adopted into God's family. Instead, there was a ruler whose servant owed him a huge sum of money. That was all. One very important point appears to have been overlooked, even by post-graduate preachers and writers. That is the servant was released from his debt, not redeemed. There is a big difference between the two. It was the king's own choice purely for the servant's benefit. As everything else stood, the debt remains unpaid. Not long afterwards, the servant was forced to repay, because no substitutionary payment was made. The story is a world away from the tale of some rich relative stepping forward to pay on the servant's behalf in full redemption from his debt. 

We can now thank and praise God for sending his dear Son Jesus Christ to make a substitutionary payment on our behalf by dying on the cross, buried in a tomb, and raised to life three days later. By believing this in our hearts, we are forever acquitted. The debt of sin owed to Infinite Justice paid in full. As Paul wrote afterwards: if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9). And John backs this up: that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...(1 John 5:1). This is not a chicken-or-egg issue. Confession can only come out from a heart belief.

And here is where I find to be the greatest source of Eternal Security. Unlike the king forgiving his servant for the servant's benefit (and a financial loss to the king himself), God has redeemed us for his own sake. In other words, the glory, honour, and majesty of God is forever tied to our redemption. It is the risen Jesus who gets all the glory, as beautifully narrated in Revelation chapter five. The glory of God to the entire heavenly host is the reason for once saved always saved.  

I can therefore ask: Can we sin, that grace may abound?

Answer: Yes we can. And we do.

But Paul does not ask that question. Rather, he asks: Shall we sin, that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1). 

Answer: By no means! 

And I love the way Paul would have spoken as an English gentleman as depicted in J. B. Phillips Translation  - What a ghastly thought!

The two questions are quite different. Because in reality, we still sin, even after redemption. That was why John the apostle wrote that anyone who says he is without sin is deceived, the truth is not in him, and in effect calling God a liar (1 John 1:8). But we have the power to choose not to sin if presented with a definite choice (as opposed to spontaneity). Instead, living a righteous life as a believer is pleasing to the Lord in the sense that such living is glorious to God in the sight of all men.

Hence the vision of a well laid dinner table while out on a morning walk. I tried to reason out the vision. A table is a board supported by four legs. That is, the traditional school desk type of furniture. Then I thought about the Cross of Christ. A cross has four stems radiating from the point where the two beams meet at the joint. These correspond with the four legs, which can also symbolise the four Gospels, each narrating the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The board is the eternal life which the gospels offer, the gift of salvation itself. On the table top is a white table cloth. It is a brilliant white covering, free from any spot or blemish. This is the righteousness of Christ. Finally, all the utensils represent the works done by the believer. There are all types of articles on the table: a silver lampstand, delicate china dishes and serving vessels, pots and cutlery made of stainless steel, but unfortunately an unwashed wooden carving board has also found it way to the table, greasy and unsightly.

All the items on the table serve one purpose, to contain food and liquids for the benefit of those sitting at table. None of the utensils, dishes, or cutlery are there for their own benefit. They are there for the benefit of the diners. I this is where I connect the vision with our Christian lives. We live for the benefit of others. It is worthwhile noting that nobody puts any items under the table. They will be of no use there. The table is supported by its four legs, and has no need of further support by anything else placed underneath. The whole furniture will not benefit whatsoever if things are piled under it in an attempt to further or strengthen its support. At worst, the table may become lopsided, allowing everything on it to slide off. Works done in order to "remain saved" has no value to either God or man. In addition, none of the items on the table itself contribute to its structure. The top will always be supported and held in place by its four legs. And that is true whether there are piles of dishes on it or nothing at all. Salvation is not dependent on our works. 

But God is very particular on how a Christian should live his life. It is all about unbelievers seeing the glory of God in our lives so they too may be converted and believe. Jesus did say that all men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another (John 13:35). Since God himself is love, the only way that unbelieving mankind can see this love is through us. And through this love for one another and also to them God will be glorified.

A Common Misunderstanding (Bible study)

Last week I detailed Abraham's character, and proving from the Bible that despite the patriarch's fear of the future, his cowardly attitude over his wife, and his inability to trust other people, God chose him to be the father of a special nation from which a Saviour was to arise to reconcile a fallen world to himself. There was a point in time when the Lord made a promise that even in his old age, a son would be born from his loins. Abraham believed this revelation in his heart, and as a result, he was fully acquitted from all his sins, and became known as the father of faith (Genesis 15:6). In both the Old and New Testaments and therefore after the patriarch's death, God has referred to himself in the present tense as the God of Abraham, indicating that he was conscious in eternity, long after his bones were buried in the Cave of Machpelah (Exodus 3:6, Mark 12:26-27).

Site of the Cave of Machpelah, Hebron
 

Whether Abraham believed it or not, by reading the narration, I am convinced of his eternal security in Christ. The fact was still true, even if the great patriarch did not realise it. I thank God that his gift of eternal life is independent of our thoughts, motives, and feelings! But what I have seen arising within the last couple of decades is the idea that a believer can lose his salvation if he either fails to hold faithful, or to allow his sins to stack up without confessing - a central tenet of the Roman Catholic faith. That is why in this follow-up blog from last week's, which can be classed as a Bible study topic, I hope to both bring such glory to God and to edify as well, if the Lord grants such a privilege.

After Abraham was justified by faith, there was no hint that he had lost his salvation, or even suffered a temporary relapse into his former lost state. Yet he was so fearful for his life, after God had given him his promise, that he virtually disowned his wife. And he did that twice, at least. If there was an opportunity for Abraham to fall away, surely those two occasions would have been them. But God, in his faithfulness in his promise, spoke both to the Egyptian Pharaoh and later, the King of Gerah, to return Sarah to her husband. The two rulers both then rebuked Abraham over his mistrust, but no rebuke, as far as I know, from Heaven. Now if it is possible for us to lose our salvation over a similar incident of faithlessness, wouldn't this make the Lord to be grossly unfair? But those who advocate a conditional security can point out at least two contrasting set of verses which gives the Bible a sense of inconsistency:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and the follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no-one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
John 10:27-30.

It is impossible for those who had once been enlightened, who has tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Hebrews 6:4-6.

Seeing such inconsistency, advocates of Conditional Security has brought out a theory that yes, once saved, nobody can take your salvation away from you, no matter how hard they try. But you are still free to just walk away from the eternal life God has given you, and perish forever. And such advocates has quoted Hebrews 6:4-6 as classic proof text to support their teachings. So why not delve into the Old Testament book of Leviticus to grasp what was really in the author's mind when he wrote that?

Leviticus opens with the tabernacle complete but not yet in use. So God gives to Moses exact and specific directions for its use, and who will be staffing it. Only the descendants of Aaron, brother of Moses, were allowed to minister to Israel at the Tabernacle. Every Israelite who wants to come into God's presence must never arrive empty-handed. Instead he must bring a male goat for a sin offering, a calf and a lamb for a burnt offering, an ox and a ram for a peace offering, along with a grain offering mixed with oil (Leviticus 9:3-4). The priest must then kill each beast according to the type of sacrifice, their fat burned on the altar, and their blood splashed on all four sides of the altar. Consequences for not obeying the regulations, or overstepping the mark, as was the case of Aaron's two sons Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10) resulted in instant death, as was the case of anyone who entered the inner sanctuary without authority, whether a priest or ordinary citizen.

Reconstructed  Jewish Tabernacle, Israel

According to the narration, Nadab and Abihu's intentions in offering fire in censors to the Lord were good. But neither his father or brothers were allowed to mourn. Despite their good motives, the incident had brought out the seriousness of sin. Simply put, it is impossible to come into God's presence without the shedding of blood, and even then, the blood must be shed in a specific way.

The Jews have kept these regulations right up to the time of Christ, but the system was a failure. Those sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sins; deliberate sins such as blasphemy, murder and adultery, as well as Sabbath-breaking (Numbers 15:32-36), and rebellion (Numbers 16) were punishable by death, normally through stoning. So after the sacrifice was completed, the one who offered was forgiven - until he sins again, and bring forth five more beasts to make a fresh atonement. This was a classic case of only past sins forgiven - a fresh sacrifice had to be made every time a person wanted to consult with his God. If the system of only past sins being forgiven had proved a failure, it looks to me to be tragic that the average Roman Catholic must attend Mass regularly to partake in a bloodless sacrifice offered by the priest, from which advocates of Conditional Security had borrowed the same soteriological idea.

When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross, the curtain which separated the inner sanctuary of the Temple from the outer one was torn in two from top to bottom, indicating a divine act. From then on, anyone can approach the throne of God without an animal sacrifice and live, and not die as a result. The sacrifice of Christ has paid for all of the sins one has, and would ever commit. So to return to offering sacrifices at the Temple after the Resurrection was a denial of the efficiency of the Atonement made by the Lord. In short, a return to Temple ordinances was denying the Lord.

As before the cross, the Holy Spirit can only reside temporally in a believer, which necessity of full acquittal was required, as was the case of Abraham, Moses, Aaron, King David, etc. But after the Resurrection, the Holy Spirit abides in the believer forever, making him holy. And that is the true definition of holiness - the presence of God, as was the case of an area of ground where Moses stood at the burning bush. God ordered Moses to take off his sandals because the ground he was standing on was holy ground (Exodus 3:5). When a group of believers gathers together, the Holy Spirit dwells not only in them but also among them, influencing any unbeliever who walks in. We can read about this in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 -

But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

Here without doubt the unbeliever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit, even in his unconverted state. But supposing that this unbeliever was a Jew who had walked in, but instead of believing in his heart that this Jesus is the promised Messiah who died to atone for him, ending all Temple sacrifices and ordinances, and rose physically from the dead, he shook his head, muttered something about "Gentile hysteria", walks out and returns to his Temple ordinances. The chance of coming to repentance becomes impossible due to a hardening of his heart. This is exactly what Hebrews 6:4-6 is all about. It was never about a believer falling away and losing his salvation, as Conditional Security advocates insist, but an unbeliever turning away after being brought to the gates of Heaven by the Holy Spirit. And that in particular among the Jews, to whom this letter was addressed.

A believer is made holy through the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. According to John 14:15-17, the Holy Spirit will abide in the believer forever. This means that if the believer falls away, and goes to Hell, the Holy Spirit will go to Hell in him. The very foolishness of this confirms the truth of Eternal Security.

Holiness is about having the Spirit of Christ dwelling in you, and shining out by showing the love of Christ to another person, especially a fellow believer. That is what walking in faith is all about. Love. As in 1 Corinthians 13. By loving that person or group of people in the same way Christ would have loved them fulfils the entire Law. The one who loves would not want to steal, hurt, kill, or falsely accuse, or even covet his possessions, and would respect the wife as her husband's and not touch her. At the same time he would love God with all his mind, heart, soul, and strength. But these things takes time for the Christian. When he sins, the Blood of Jesus had already atoned for him, but it's good for him to agree with God that he wasn't following the lead of the Spirit. That is what confession to God is all about - simply to agree with him.

I have written all this because of the peeve in watching fellow believers living under the Law, as this is the result of Conditional Security - living under the Law. That is, if I allow my sins to stack up unconfessed, or turn away from the faith, I perish. And that despite that if I keep the Law but stumble at just one point, I become guilty of all (James 2:10). And I have found that those believing in Conditional Security (or as I like to call it: Probational Salvation) tend to be less loving, more judgemental and critical, and generally weary towards those who disagree with them. So according to my 40 + years of being a believer myself, having being snapped at by those who thinks they must "hold on". But despite our human frailty (and those who believe in Eternal Security have their weaknesses too) - my desire is to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, and whenever I have to make a decision, or how I should respond to a given situation, I ask myself: How would Jesus have dealt with this?

It's a good way of living a holy life.