A Pair of Shoes & Divine Certainty

Clothes shopping has always been a dreaded nightmare! Whether if I'm buying clothes for myself or for my wife Alex, it's when we try out the new item and then discover that it doesn't fit properly. Then comes the awful dread; to return the garment to the store where it was bought, complete with the receipt, only to be looked upon with a degree of suspicion. After all, no business wants to refund. They are there to make money by selling its merchandise rather than be the centre of some kind of experimentation.

Maybe that was the reason why most respectable clothing stores have fitting rooms. A splendid idea. Then again, I recall using a fitting room to try out trousers of slightly different sizes - and still get it wrong. How come that the item seems comfortable enough whilst being tried at the store, but trying it on again at home and yep, it has shrunk? Or expanded? Or fail to notice such abundance of material around the hem which will get caught on the bicycle chain whilst out riding? Perhaps I could ask: What sort of metamorphosis does the garment go through whilst sitting in the train or bus heading for home? Coming to think of it, a perfect fit after arriving home can be considered a cause for celebration.

But not this week when it came to a pair of shoes. Not for me, but for my wife. The type of shoe she likes and usually wears was - surprise surprise - out of stock. So after spending what I believe was excess time looking at and trying on several alternatives, we settled on this particular pair of her size. She tried them on. And she smiled broadly, declaring that she felt comfortable in them. Then she paid for them herself, using her own debit card.

After arriving home, she tried on her new shoes again prior to going back out to buy some groceries.

"How do they feel?" I asked.

Yes, they are okay. But...

I felt my skin beginning to crawl.

...But...That dreaded word, But...

I new straightaway that not all was well. And of course, I was right. She eventually asked for them to be returned to the store where she bought them. And so feeling rather sheepish but obliged as a husband should be to the call of duty, I returned the shoes to the same staff members who served us the day before. The assistant was just about to process my debit card when she noticed that my card number did not coincide with the printed receipt. She explained that because she used her card to purchase the shoes, I cannot use my own card for refunding, although she would have done so had I brought her card as well.

The next day, on my way to visit the gym, I tried again, this time with my wife's card. Alas! This time there were different staff members on duty who were unfamiliar with us, and as far as they were concerned, I could have flown straight in from Timbuktu. Because of my wife's absence, this different staff member refused to refund altogether, even if I had her debit card and a joint account. She explained that this would be fraudulent. And here is the twist: Had I brought my wife's card in on the previous day, there would have been no problem. The simple reason was that the staff who initially served us has seen my wife buy the shoes. But this new assistant did not, and therefore "went by the rules". So I walked out feeling very flustered with the shoes still in my backpack together with the gym gear. Indeed, I was tempted to throw the shoes into a rubbish bin and forever forget about them.

Was I trying to commit fraud? Personally, I don't think so. Both our cards have the same surname and the same account number. It was obvious that we have a joint account. The funds in this account has always been available for both of us simultaneously. Yet I do understand the precautions the shop must take in order to avoid involvement in a fraud case. In surprise, I asked how could I possibly steal from my own wife. At the time, the thought that among professionals in particular, each partner having their own separate account did not cross my mind. Instead I walked out feeling humiliated at the thought that I was considered a potential fraudster. Indeed such an accusation did not bring any glory to God, or any feeling of well-being or accomplishment.

It's a case of my word against some smartly-dressed faceless bureaucrat in the head office boardroom without any verification process for refunding put in place. Of course, he was right and I was wrong. But this is the risk with buying clothes, or any other merchandise. It's always their word against mine. But rules must be obeyed. Rules are in place because there must have been cases of genuine fraud in the past, maybe even between married couples, an area where trust between partners should be most essential.

And this is always been an issue of trust, or lack of it. For example, why is it so essential to buy a ticket before boarding a train? Why can't I just pay the fare, board the train, and that's the end of it? Instead, I must hold a ticket for the inspector to check before boarding the train, or in this modern day, activate an electronic barrier gate. And once on board the train, the conductor enters the carriage with his loud order, Tickets please! Just paying the fare and boarding is not enough. Instead, the conductor earns his living this way because, with the absence of both him and the platform ticket inspector, there would be no small numbers of fare-dodgers. And that is where such a small card is always my protection against a curious conductor or other staff member to approach me and ask whether I paid my fare, and if so, having made the correct payment. Holding a ticket is actually for my own protection against accusation of theft.

It all boils down to one little word: Sin.

As I attended a midweek meeting at The Kerith Centre, the talk was about universal sin and how it affects every aspect of our lives. The need to buy a ticket before travel is the consequence of sin. Because without a need for a ticket, not only anyone could board a train without first making the appropriate payment, but there would be a great many who would vie for the chance. Hence such people are enslaved to their sinful nature. Yet if I was to say that attempting to avoid the fare is repugnant, and I would ensure that I always pay what is due, is that arrogant self-righteousness? Or acting like a Pharisee? No, it's neither. Rather it's out of being a slave to righteousness, according to Romans 6:18. Being a slave to righteousness is a wonderful thing, a desire to do the right thing, to make the right choice, even if this entails a degree of loss or suffering. For God has regenerated me and then placed his Holy Spirit within me. As such I recall, for another example, an occasion when I could have easily walked out of the busy Leisure Centre without paying for the gym session, and none would have been the wiser. 

Instead, I got to the back of an ultra-slow-moving queue in order to pay for the gym session. A slave of righteousness indeed, as I felt compelled to join that queue. Generally, I hate queuing up. Especially at a superstore checkout line. Queuing up behind a customer with a stack of redemption vouchers has tested my patience to the limit, but my master has not given me any other option. But the promise is there, life and peace in Jesus Christ, to where such servant-hood will lead.

Oh the wonder of grace! As a sinner, I have no chance of trying to reconcile myself to God on my own efforts. The worst thing about all this is that James had written that if I keep the whole Law yet stumble at just one point, I have broken the whole Law (James 2:10). It becomes obvious. I don't drive, but if I did, and went above the speed limit, I would be stopped if caught by the Police and issued a ticket, later to appear in Court. It doesn't matter how well I have kept the law before then. I'm a lawbreaker and guilty. A penalty must be paid. Unless a good friend or relative comes along and pays the fine on my behalf. Then I would be set free, no longer under condemnation, neither under any form of probation.

As such, reading Paul's letter to the Romans, especially chapters three and four, and find to be terrifically inspiring. Here the apostle takes the account of Adam and Eve as historical, unlike many Christian grads of our day who reduces the historicity to a mere analogy. Just as Adam disobeyed, so we are all sons of disobedience, slaves to sin, and subject to death. So Christ, the second Adam, is obedient, and through his obedience, we are forensically declared righteous in God's sight, the righteousness which comes from Heaven and is imputed into us. A free gift, given for eternity! And because it's a free gift of eternal life with God through faith in Jesus Christ, it cannot be lost or forfeited. Neither it is given on a probational basis.

It is the reality of this free gift that makes me want to love and serve God. The question of Eternal Security of the believer, I think, makes a big impact on how the Christian perceives God. But living in a body of sinful flesh, often doubts of my salvation comes to mind, especially if I have sinned in one way or another or failed to live up to my expectations. These times of doubting might have originated from my Roman Catholic childhood upbringing. And yes I do sin, even if I'm a slave of righteousness. Maybe that is why John the Apostle wrote that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and call God a liar. It all seems hopeless at first.

But if we confess our sins, then he is ready to forgive us from our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-10). And it is to Christian believers John is addressing. If this is so, then John is backing what Paul earlier wrote to the church at Corinth that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruption (1 Corinthians 15:50). So our bodies are corrupted by sin, according to the apostle. Maybe that is why when a believer dies, his spirit and soul goes straight to Heaven to be with the Resurrected Jesus, whilst his body goes to the grave, to await the resurrection, to be exactly like the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Isn't that wonderful? 

Therefore, I am more than willing to be a slave of righteousness; to queue up at the Reception rather than walk out without paying. Ditto at the train station. Even if the barriers are open and the premises totally understaffed, I will still pay the fare (there are automatic ticketing machines). Or for that matter, accept the ill-fitting shoes, or take my wife to the shop and she can be refunded at last, or even give the shoes away to charity. That's a lot better than chucking them into the bin, as I nearly did.

Just Read Your Bible

During last week's morning sermon at Ascot Life Church, I was singled out for commendation for my faith remaining steady during trying times, especially when my dear beloved was confined to a hospital bed for nearly four months. Evening after evening, after a day's work, I cycled to the station to catch a train for the short run to Reading, simply because I wanted to be with her, to give her encouragement and to leave, two hours later, with her spirits raised - even if this included cracking jokes which made her howl with laughter, much to the annoyance of one elderly patient in the same ward whose grown-up son confronted me face-to-face one Saturday afternoon.

 

At least my calm reply was enough to cool his temper, even though I felt hot under the collar myself. To see my wife recover was the only thing I wanted. Yet in times like these, I have wondered how anyone without the love of God in their lives manage in similar situations. Personally, I thank the Lord dearly for reaching out for one who our culture calls a worthless lump of clay, such as myself, who was a catastrophic failure at school, yet had my eyes opened to the source of the richest wisdom anyone can possess. So no doubt I felt elated when I heard the commendation spoken out in front of everybody in the room.

 

When the service was over and enjoying a snack of coffee and doughnut, a young friend of mine approached and strongly encouraged me to stay close to Jesus. I replied that after forty years, if I had not strayed in all this time, it's not likely that I would fall away now. I could say that I knew the Lord while he was still a twinkle in his old man's eye! But I have found his advice encouraging, even if it may be for the wrong reason, which is to say that if I fell away, I could well end up in Hell. 

 

And it is this kind of thinking which so sadly prevails in many Christians at present. I once read in a survey, or an article which contained the results of the survey, that of every believer who becomes disillusioned with the faith, or even fall away, more than 80% of these were taught never to believe in Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) or Eternal Security of the Believer. I was even given a hint of the higher suicide rate among those who were taught to "hold out faithful" or face the possibility of a lost eternity, and others who were committed to an institution. And I'm not just referring to "orthodox" Christians here, but also include Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups who believe that OSAS is heresy, and the necessity to work to keep our salvation. I would go as far to say that in the vast majority of such cases - known in theological circles as Arminianism, after Dutch theologian James Arminius who first published these ideas - are under the guidance of their pastor, elder, an itinerant preacher or evangelist, or even literature written by an "expert" all pointing to isolated Scripture verses "proving" their point.

 

When I attended Spring Harvest Bible festival in Minehead with my wife in 2002, one of the sermons, preached one evening at the Big Top was about the Fatherhood of God to all believers. The preacher, who believed in Eternal Security, talked with a face radiant with joy, and his joy was infectious right across the several thousand strong congregation. The following evening, another preacher began to put various conditions on the talk delivered the previous evening. In other words, he said that granted, God is our Father, providing that...such conditions are fulfilled on our part. There was no radiant joy issuing from his countenance. Rather, he looked as if he had just received news on the death of his mother. His lacklustre was also reflected on the rest of us. Such was the influence of those who don't believe in the eternal security of the believer.

 

This has brought me to thinking: Do we need any form of guidance in our Christian growth? I would say yes, indeed. I was very fortunate to have grown up spiritually in an environment where OSAS was accepted by our Elders and teachers. I have read books by different authors, the majority having believed in Eternal Security. And if I had came across an Arminian author, even by chance, then I would have sensed the dismay in my spirit which would have compelled me to put the book down. Alongside Christian authors such as Hal Lindsey and the late Dave Hunt, both eternal security believers, the one I had always referred to as my mentor was the late Dr. John R. Rice, founder and director of The Sword of the Lord, based at Murfreeboro in Tennessee. Although I had never met the man personally, back in 1974 I have accepted him as my mentor in getting to understand the Bible better through reading of his literature, particularly in why I had to differentiate between my present faith from my former Roman Catholic youth.

 

But as for personal reading of the Bible, here in the UK at least, many believers have a daily devotional such as Everyday with Jesus. This may be fine for some - I don't have any issues over this, it's solely between God and the person who reads it. But as I understand, a verse from the Bible is read, followed by a commentary on it, and a time to meditate on what was read. The shortcoming with this, to my mind, is allowing a third party to constantly direct the reading of the Bible, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself.

 

I have found by letting the Bible speak for itself, that is, without a third party involved, I was able, so to speak, to knock on Heaven's door for answers. Rather than read one verse a day, I wanted to find out what the bigger picture was about. One of the greatest truths that came out was God's Omniscience. The whole of Psalm 139 spells it out well. But for those who have a familiarity with the Old Testament, have you ever wondered why, in Daniel 7:5 for example, talks of the prophet's vision of a bear with three ribs in its mouth? What was that all about? Was it a detail thrown in to puzzle, or even to scare its readers? Here I did not have anyone to guide me on this matter, but by asking God direct in prayer, the answer lies with the Jews, Israel, and their capital city Jerusalem.

 

In 586 BC, Jerusalem was sacked by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. However, some time before then, the young King Jechoniah, a descendant of King David, was taken prisoner by Nebuchadnezzar and escorted to Babylon. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evil-Merodach took the throne. But God gave this king a kind heart, and had Jechoniah released from prison to feast at the king's table. Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, who in turn became the father of Zerubabbel, the governor who was to lead the first group of Jews back to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple that was razed by Nebuchadnezzar seventy years earlier. Evil-Merodach's son Belshazzar then took the Babylonian throne, and during his reign, Darius the Mede conquered the Babylonians and had its final king executed. Therefore Daniel's vision of the bear with three ribs in its mouth - of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, and Belshazzar, the only three Babylonian rulers who ever had dominion over the Jews and Jerusalem, therefore they were well symbolised by the three ribs in the bear's mouth.

 

Is all this relevant to us? Well, Zerubabbel was the ancestor of Joseph husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Through Daniel's vision, which was given to him while still under Babylonian rule, demonstrates the omniscience of God in protecting the Messianic line, including both the Royal title as well as the biological side. Then staying with Daniel, in the past I have wondered why so much prophetic detail is given in chapter 11 - the prophecy about the conflict between the Greek kings of the North and of the South. It is not an exciting read, to my mind at least. But the detail is so startlingly accurate, that the unbelieving had long insisted that this Scripture was written after all the events written therein had taken place. If ever the Omniscience of God was in its full display, this was it. But why did the Lord take so much trouble in such specific detail?

 

It was when I realised that no part of the Bible was written when the Jews were dominated by the Greeks. As with all the other empires which ruled over Israel, some parts of the Bible were written. During the rule of the Egyptians, Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Mede/Persian empires which all had dominion over Israel, parts of the Old Testament were written. The entire New Testament was written under the Roman empire. But when the Jews were under the Greek empire, no part of the Old Testament was written, as Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was completed under the Mede/Persian rule. It was as if, by his Omniscience, God was preparing his word beforehand, prior to the Greeks taking over, and the chapter continues on right up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, future from our own standpoint in time. As I see it, this not only demonstrates his Omniscience, but also his Covenant with Abraham and his descendants will endure forever.

 

Then I'm fascinated with Paul's letter to the Romans. If there is a letter which first describes the universal wickedness of mankind, then goes on to explain about a righteousness from heaven, imputed to everyone who believes in Jesus, Paul's letter to the Romans explains all these with clarity. He then uses the case of Abraham, how he was justified by faith when God revealed to him that he will have a son. The righteousness imputed on Abraham was God's own righteousness, expressed and demonstrated in Jesus Christ. This righteousness is imputed to all who believe in Jesus Christ Resurrected, making salvation a free gift given without works to earn it. Then after explaining the presence of sin in himself, which is aroused whenever the Law is read out in the synagogues, he then goes on into chapter 8, for me, the most beautiful chapter in the whole Bible, and can be seen as a direct reference for those who believe in OSAS.

 

But what makes this letter fascinating. Again, it's an expression of God's Omniscience. In what way? That it was addressed to the church in Rome, the very city of the Emperor's throne, who one day in AD 313 will become the Bishop of Rome. A union of Church and State which will give rise of the Roman Catholic Church with its emphasis on salvation by works. Paul's letter to the Romans is a direct rebuke to the Roman Catechism. Paul himself most likely did not realise this when he wrote the letter, but in his Omniscience, the Holy Spirit behind its inspiration, knew. Romans is the only letter which at its end greets every household who meets in the city. What was meant to be Paul's care for each individual or household, the Holy Spirit points out that the apostle Peter was not present in Rome throughout his life as a minister, or else he would have got a mention in the given list, if not actually heading the list. Much, if not all, of the Roman catechism was built on Peter being in Rome and was the first Pope. The listing shows his absence, as he was in Babylon, far in the opposite direction from Jerusalem, ministering to the Jewish Diaspora.

 

And here I conclude why I believe in Once Saved Always Saved. God's Omniscience. It looks to me that, according to the Ephesians, we have been saved from eternity past as we are already seated in Heaven, as the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Could this be the reason why men from the dawn of history were justified by faith, the same as with every New Testament believer? As God sees it, outside of the human time frame, every saint was saved from eternity past. Yet He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel. A mystery maybe. But God is God, beyond our finite understanding.

Lordship Salvation - Fact Or Fallacy?

There was always that time of day Mary particularly feared. That was at the dinner table in the evening with her father, mother and her siblings. Thus the dinner table should have been the one place where the whole family gets together after a typical day, a time to chat and share how each member spent their time. Instead, Dad would often fly off the handle, banging his fist on the table so hard, that everything on it would jump into the air, and utter an expletive of angry words to any member of the family, but mostly directed at his wife, Mary's mother.

As the young girl trembled at yet another of her father's explosive tempers, she vowed to herself:

I'll never marry a man who is like my father!

Some years later, Mary met Bill, who treated her with kindness and love. He too seemed to have a high moral standard, but this did not bother Mary during their courting days, because he kept on showering love and affection, by which her own love for him was engendered. When he at last proposed, she joyfully accepted and wedded him. But it took some weeks later, well after their honeymoon ended, that one morning, as she cooked breakfast, she burned the toast, and the room filling with smoke stirred her husband's ire. He banged his fist hard on the table and shouted aloud to her what a damned fool she was.

Mary reeled back, and thought:
Oh my God, I married a man who is just like my father!

That morning, something inside her died. She could no longer see her husband in the same way she saw him during their courtship. As time went on, she bore him children, and their father developed a pride of his own parental status, yet she stayed around to make sure that her children had a good start in life.

Then one day, while the kids were at school, she met Mike at the office where she worked part time. With her own love for Bill long dead, she saw Mike as a possible means of escape from a loveless, fear-bound marriage, in which she felt imprisoned. Eventually, she falls in love with Mike, and files a divorce from Bill. It was a messy affair, what with the Court case on who will have custody of the kids, but watching their parents separate brought much fear and insecurity within them.

The characters in this tale are fiction, but they are based on a true story involving living people. If Mike turned out to be a far better husband than Bill had been, chances would be that her second marriage will endure to old age. But supposing Mike too had a ferocious temper and a high moral standard she was not able to keep? The most likely scenario would be a second divorce, followed by a vow that she would resist any further attempt to be wooed by another man who comes her way, and may even join a feminist group or club. In turn, if she had won custodial rights of her children Bill had fathered, she would end up as one of many single mothers living in the land.

Rather like the Samaritan woman who crossed paths with Jesus Christ while he sat at the well. She has had five husbands, had divorced them all and she was already living with another man. Back in those days, as within the Middle East to this day, a wife was looked and treated as a man's property. This Samaritan woman fell in love and married five different guys at different times, and each of her husbands treated her like scum. When she met Jesus, not only did he tell her everything she had ever done, but he loved her, and loved her in a way that was to change her life forever. He loved her as she was, and by her own choice and the thrill in wallowing in such love, she went out to her city and invited them to see this man who she believes to be the Jewish Messiah.

And this, I think, is what following Christ is all about. I have read blogs on this site as well as books on the Lordship of Christ, which may bear what looks like an admirable slogan: If Christ is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all.

It this sense, Jesus is looked upon as a kind of employer or leader rather than who he really is. To the one who teaches Lordship salvation, first I must renounce all my sins, deny myself of any pleasure that is looked upon as unwholesome, take up the cross and follow him. I think that there just might be a problem about renouncing of sin. Talking of sexual sin, for example, I have found it okay to refrain from sex which is outside of marriage. But just looking at another person with a degree of lust is classed by Jesus Christ as adultery as well, but I'll be lying if I were to say that had not happened since conversion. And calling someone a fool without a proper cause is classed as murder, yet I've been angry many times. So is snobbery or snootiness is classed as murder also, according to the Apostle James. Then going back to the sin of adultery, marrying a divorcee is adultery, according to Jesus. By divorcing Bill and marrying Mike, Mary becomes an adulteress along with her second husband. Yet I recall not that long ago when I attended a housegroup, and one of the female members was going through a painful divorce. The leader of the group declared this to be condemned by some Christians on the basis of adultery. She burst into tears as she stormed out of the meeting. How could she love a God with such a picky nature? Yet that is what Lordship Salvation seem to demand.

 

And music, one of many I should deny myself from if I am to take up the cross to follow Jesus. Most Christians would feel smug for not liking the punk group Sex Pistols of the seventies, or the rock  band, Iron Maiden with their 1982 album Number of the Beast. But I happen to like and enjoy listening to George Harrison's hit, My Sweet Lord, which is a reverence to the Hindu Hare Krishna Mantra. Or listening to Enya with her smooth New Age songs and instrumentals. But then again, I ought to take full delight in Christian songs. The snag with that is I must love such spiritual songs, or else if I don't, it might be proof that I'm not saved after all. Yet there were a number of songs which, to my mind, seemed totally naff, such as the one which contains the line, I am richer than a king - not exactly inspiring if I struggle week by week to keep our budget afloat. Or that other song which has the words, Let it rain, let it rain, let the rain fall...when I was forced to remain housebound for much of the working week due to atrocious weather! It makes me wonder about the mind-thought of these songwriters. Then another song, These are the days of Elijah...Yea, indeed. When I visualise a man in a suit leaving his detached home in a leafy Surrey suburb to climb into his saloon car for a short drive to the office - it's as close to the days of Elijah as it would get. Seriously, since I have a preference for George Harrison and Enya over some spiritual songs, Jesus must be scowling at me, according to Lordship Salvation.

 

But here, on the subject of spiritual songs, I am aware of the songwriter's sincerity in producing such music. I am richer than a king is a referral to our Heavenly heritage and that we as believers are already seated there despite our daily struggles and gross unfairness in this life. And Let the rain fall on us is about the Holy Spirit filling us as a corporate body so we would have an impact among unbelievers around us, particularly at work. The issue with Elijah is still to me somewhat of a mystery, but the point here made is that according to Lordship Salvation, Jesus can't be very happy with me in preferring secular music, and may even question my salvation.

 

Another example maybe, is riding on a nail-biting roller-coaster yelling at the fast, downhill drop when I should be spending my time praying, meditating or reading the Bible. Or forbidding to watch television. Around 1976, I had gotten involved with a Pentecostal group which met weekly at the leader's home, and this guy had visited the homes of members to ensure that there were no TVs present. I had left that group before he had the chance to visit my apartment. He also insisted that men had short hair and women met with their heads covered, and salvation was lost if anyone don't tow the line, loses or renounced their faith. In such an environment, I may indeed "take up my cross and follow him" but God also seemed to present a callous nature which is easy to fear but difficult to love.

And I think this was the main problem with the house of Israel, particularly during and after the Exodus. I read about the almighty power of God as Moses defeats Pharaoh, then opens up the Red Sea so that the Hebrews can cross on dry land, watch the sea close back in to witness the pursuing Egyptian army drown, feed them with manna and deliver the Decalogue from the summit of a high mountain. But in reading these pages, together with the whole book of Leviticus, I felt very little of God's love to the Hebrews. Very demanding? Yes. Perfect? Yes. Holy? Yes. Just by reading the Law I could see a lot of goodness and fairness for each other, but being executed for collecting sticks on the Sabbath? Or just for swearing at my parents in frustration? Or for having sex with a woman not my wife? Or even one person who questioned the leadership of Moses. For me personally, in these pages I can't visualise God as a loving Father who understands my weak frame yet accepts me for who I am, but rather as someone who is constantly looking out for any mistake I make and clobber me for it.

This, I believe, was how the house of Israel viewed God as well. The rest of the Old Testament is a melancholic record of the rebellious nation who had a golden calf made soon after the Decalogue was delivered. When the calf was destroyed, the people drank from a nearby stream and worshipped, but I tend to sense that it was through fear of punishment rather than true contrition borne out of love. The nation rebelled right through to the exile to Babylon, with only short periods of revival, such as under King David and Solomon. By the time of the prophet Jeremiah, the nation was in such a bad state that repentance was out of the question and the exile was the only means of discipline.

 

Yet God knew of all this from before history. In Romans 5:20 Paul writes that the law was added so that sin might increase. In other words, although the law of God was perfect in itself, it brought the wrath of God, as sin within myself caused me to kick back in rebellion. And I should know. During my teenage years I was an atheist, after failing to keep the law of the Roman Catholic Church in order to enter Heaven after death. In the synoptic Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke) where the true meaning of the law was revealed, most of the teaching of Jesus was directed to Jews, who thought that by keeping the law of Moses will receive eternal life. Many believed that they were doing okay. The rich young ruler was one of them, although he was aware that he missed out on something. When Jesus exposed his love of his own wealth which brought him security, it was then that his failure to keep the commandments lay mostly with his sin of worshipping his riches instead of God. As one who believed in Lordship Salvation myself in the 1980s, I failed to read what Jesus concluded: That what is impossible with man is possible with God. In other words, without a special working of God in our hearts, it is impossible to keep the commandments perfectly to the level of inheriting eternal life.

In the beginning, God created us with a free choice to love him. He didn't want automation. Instead, he desired a true relationship of love. Because God himself is love. This perfect eternal love flowed unhindered between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Throughout the whole of eternity there was no hint of disagreement within the members of the Trinity. The whole Godhead agreed to create the earth and put humankind on it with the purpose of sharing in this love within the Trinity. When sin entered the world, the culprit for this was Lucifer, and the battle for men's hearts was between God and Lucifer, not with man himself.

 

God didn't say that he will defeat the Devil by giving man a set of laws to keep. Instead he declared that a descendant of Adam will bruise his head, and he in turn will bruise his heel. Jesus Christ did just that - when he died on the cross, Lucifer was defeated. Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. He is God becoming flesh, a necessity to redeem humankind and restore the love relation between them and himself. Because Jesus is God incarnate, he is Lord. In fact, that is precisely why he is Lord - because Jesus Christ is God Almighty! When Paul wrote that no one can say Jesus is Lord except through the Holy Spirit, he was referring to him as being God, not merely a leader, employer or teacher.

One way God likens his relationship with the believing saint is likened to the husband/wife relationship. Jesus had referred to his Church (universal body of believers) as his Bride. As a believer, I am part of that Bride. So are you. But it wasn't by any effort on my part or yours. Any effort on our part would have been utterly impossible, simply because Jesus Christ is God and we are not! Therefore to believe, I did not throw all my secular music records away into the trash bin, neither did I promise never to visit the cinema, amusement park or even from watching television, yet neither did I give my life unconditionally and unreservingly to Jesus Christ, promising to take up the cross and follow him daily in order to secure my salvation. Yet I have read and listened to Lordship Salvationists teach precisely this! By the end of the day I wondered just whose grace saves; God's grace - or my own?

Poor Mary. Her husband had a very high moral standard, high enough to pass judgement when she burned the toast. The result was that something in their marriage died. She was a loyal female who believed in both keeping her marriage alive and making sure her children were taken care of, yet it lacked that vital spark of life. Mike was the easy way out.

But supposing on that morning, while smoke was filling the kitchen, Bill had put his arms around his wife and gently whispered,
Darling, don't worry about the toast. You can heat another slice of bread, or if you wish, I'll do it. Oh Mary, I love you so much. You are everything to me, and you will always be.

How much more would the marriage have blossomed! She would have felt secure, revelling in her husband's love. One thing for sure, Mike at the office would have had absolutely no appeal to her. Her steadfast love for her husband would have drowned out any desire Mike would have tried to engender. Just to make Bill happy would have been her best interest, eager to pursue.

And that's how Jesus is to us, and if believed to be true, our response would be in love, knowing that his love for us is unconditional. He has taken all our sins, all our imperfections and all our shortcomings on the cross. God the Father will never ever see us as sinful or falling short ever again, as he has removed our sins as far away is east is from the West and our sins he will see no more.

Lordship Salvation? Into the bin along with the burnt toast. After all, both taste awful.