The only way to find the right fear of God is through the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. The cross of Christ is where majestic holiness and infinite mercy find their perfect conjunction as far as man is concerned. It is in the gospel that men can look at blinding holiness and glorious love and see them in light of each other. When the gospel is rightly taught, there is neither the dilution of God’s wrath, power and majesty, nor a grudging admission or dismissive assent to God’s love, grace, and mercy. As surely as the Incarnation requires belief that Christ is truly God and truly man, so the gospel (and the doctrine of simplicity) requires we believe that God is infinitely great and infinitely good. 

Here’s a short test. What follows is a list of several words associated with fear. Which of these have to do with the fear of the Lord?
Horror, awe, terror, quiet, despair, seriousness, intimidation, dread, timidity, scariness, panic, astonishment, trepidation, anxiety, reverence. The exercise is not primarily to get it exactly “right”, for even these words carry connotations that will differ from person to person. Generally speaking, most thoughtful Christians will weed out the most negative and destructive of fears (despair, horror, panic) while retaining the ones that suggest seriousness.
Understanding the inner affection of reverence is as difficult as trying to define any human emotion. Our best chance of understanding it well is to begin negatively: eliminating the wrong kinds of fear on either end of the spectrum. From there, we will likely find the kind of fear the mixes elements of both sides.
What is the fear “spectrum”? On one extreme, we would have the kind of fear that a sinner would face should he experience the pure, unmitigated greatness of an infuriated omnipotent god, were that god his enemy. This fear would be terror and horror of the most agonising kind. Nothing except the despair of the sinner’s inevitable destruction looms over him. No hope is here, only panic, for there is nothing but threat to one’s being.
The opposite extreme would be the over-familiarity that a friend or relative might have with one in a position of authority. The position of authority is known to the friend, but the close relationship leads the friend to almost scoff at his position, as if it is an inside joke that such authority does not rule over friends. The ‘goodness’ of his friend, their relationship of friendship does not simply render his authority friendly; it neutralises it altogether.
Of these two, we know which is in the ascendancy today when it comes to worshipping God.
Read More

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Claiming that religion can have no part in public discourse, in government, in law, etc., is not a neutral stance regarding religion. It is an overtly hostile and antithetical stance whatever its claims about tolerance; it is hostile to God and therefore to most of what is good, true, and just in the world. 

The Blessings of Cultural Christianity?
I am the beneficiary of cultural Christianity. I didn’t grow up in a genuinely Christian home, though I did attend (very) liberal United Methodist churches beginning in elementary school. These churches did not believe the Bible was true, did not believe in the supernatural events of Scripture, nor the moral teaching of God’s word.
And yet Christianity was the very air I breathed all through my childhood and teenage years. I spent most of my childhood in a small town in northern Oklahoma. In the 1980s the influence of Christianity was all pervasive in such a place. I still remember the assembly at my local public elementary school in which the principal, with no hesitation at all, nor fear that his words would endanger his position, stated unequivocally that our country was under God’s judgment. Christian culture was so pervasive that no one batted an eye.
When I moved to West Texas in the early 1990s I simply moved from one culturally Christian milieu to another. While the liberal Methodist church I attended there continued to teach the same tepid moralism devoid of the saving work of Christ, I was largely uninfluenced by it. Having spent my whole life in strongly culturally Christian places the thought never even crossed my mind that the Bible could be anything other than 100% true. I had never really even read the Bible. And yet the influence of the culture in which I lived was such that despite the Methodists’ best efforts I never for a second doubted that the Bible was true.
I wasn’t converted until my freshman year in college in the late 1990s, around the time my parents also began to take Christianity seriously. Cultural Christianity paved the way. Having not read the Bible much at all growing up I was shocked when, in a bout of homesickness my freshman year, I picked up my Bible and began reading the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans. Imagine my surprise, having only ever known liberal Methodist churches, when I encountered Paul’s words about human sin and rebellion against God:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.—Romans 1:18
…we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.—Romans 3:9
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…—Romans 3:23
And then my joy in reading those wonderfully words which follow:
…and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.—Romans 3:24-25
When I read all of this I simply believe d it. It was in the Bible after all, so I assumed it had to be true.
Had I not grown up in the culturally Christian world I did this would not have happened. Could God have saved me anyway? Of course. But does that make the blessing of having grown up in the world I did any less real? Would the same thing have happened, even been possible, if I had grown up as a Muslim in a Muslim nation? Or in a modern radically secular state in Western Europe? God is sovereign, he saves as he pleases, but I am thankful to this day for the way in which my path was prepared for years prior to my own conversion.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Heaven-sent messengers appear to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist; to Mary the mother of Jesus, followed by an appearance to her husband, Joseph; and upon Jesus’ birth an innumerable company of angels to shepherds in Bethlehem’s fields (Luke 1:11–20, 26–38; Matt. 1:20–21; Luke 2:8–14). A special star in the heavens guides the magi to the Messiah, while the Holy Spirit provides special revelation to aged Simeon and Anna (Matt. 2:1–2, 9; Luke 2:25–27, 36–38). These extraordinary phenomena suit well the whole realm of supernatural activity that characterized God’s redemptive revelation from the time of the patriarchs. 

The first thing that strikes the reader of the initial announcements regarding the coming of the Christ is their supernatural character, both in the means by which the message is delivered and in the content of the message itself. These initial annunciations come not by a prophet of the Lord, but by a messenger sent directly from heaven itself. Heaven-sent messengers appear to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist; to Mary the mother of Jesus, followed by an appearance to her husband, Joseph; and upon Jesus’ birth an innumerable company of angels to shepherds in Bethlehem’s fields (Luke 1:11–20, 26–38; Matt. 1:20–21; Luke 2:8–14). A special star in the heavens guides the magi to the Messiah, while the Holy Spirit provides special revelation to aged Simeon and Anna (Matt. 2:1–2, 9; Luke 2:25–27, 36–38). These extraordinary phenomena suit well the whole realm of supernatural activity that characterized God’s redemptive revelation from the time of the patriarchs. They manifest their significance even more dramatically against the stark backdrop of the four hundred years separating the age of the old covenant from the new. Yet a clear point of continuity is established by the fact that the heavenly messenger who first breaks the revelational silence by communicating with Zechariah the father of John the Baptist is none other than Gabriel, the same heavenly messenger who revealed mysteries to Daniel at the end of the old covenant era (Luke 1:19, 26; Dan. 8:16; 9:21). In addition, these supernatural announcements focus on significant supernatural events soon to take place. Elizabeth, well past the age of bearing children, will have a son (Luke 1:13). Her experience follows the pattern of divine interventions related to the bearing of a godly seed by barren women of the old covenant era (Gen. 11:30; 16:1; 18:11; 25:21; 29:31; Judg. 13:2). But even more significantly, Mary the virgin will conceive a son by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26–35). This special One to be born, unique in the history of humanity, is described by the messenger from heaven as “great” and “the Son of the Most High” (v. 32a). God will give him the “throne of his father David,” and he will “reign over the house of Jacob forever” (vv. 32b–33). By this announcement, he is clearly identified as the person destined to fulfill all the promises concerning a coming Messiah descended from David who will rule over the Israel of God.1 His supernatural birth from the virgin dramatically underscores his unique role as the only Son of God who is equal to the Father.
A Supernatural Sign
In recent days, even evangelical scholars have shown a willingness to concede that Isaiah’s prophecy spoke only of conception by a “young woman,” not a virgin. But a proper understanding of Isaiah’s prophecy hinges not only on the precise meaning of the word for “virgin” or “young woman,” but on the context as a whole. The intent of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition according to the prophet Isaiah is not simply to establish military superiority over the kingdom of Judah, but to terminate the Davidic line of royal succession that by now has continued for over 250 years (Isa. 7:6). When Isaiah offers doubting King Ahaz a sign of confirmation, he proposes the outer limits of the miraculous: “in the deepest depths or in the highest heights” (v. 11). The prophetic response to the king’s niggardly refusal must somehow come up to the prophet’s own proposed standards. What is God willing to do that will ensure the unbrokenness of his oath to David?
Read More
Related Posts: