How to Examine Spiritual Fruit
If we want to know if our fruit is healthy or diseased, we need to ask ourselves, “What place does the word of God have in our lives?” Do we recognize its authority as the words of Jesus himself and obey it, or do we treat it as simply the words of another errant scribe and mold it to our desires? How we answer that question will have eternal consequences.
As professing Christians, one of the first questions we need to ask ourselves is if we are a healthy tree or a diseased tree (Matthew 7:18), and the way to do that is to look at the fruit we bear. However, we must scrutinize the fruit because some fruit can look good outside but be rotten inside.
Simply because we say, “Lord, Lord,” in response to Jesus does not mean our fruit is good. Many will say, “Lord, Lord,” and point to their fruit as evidence. They will speak about the prophecies and mighty works they did in the name of Jesus, and he will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23).
There is a standard we must use to examine our fruit. It is our obedience to the word of God. This standard is why when Jesus rejects the false converts, he calls them “workers of lawlessness.” To Jesus, the law and the word of God are identical. Determination of whether or not our fruit is good hinges on our obedience to Scripture.
You Might also like
-
On Consorting With Theologians of Mean Reputation
One of the worst things about the contemporary reformed is the inability to distinguish friends from enemies. It’s a primary facet of biblical wisdom but we don’t have it.
Taking a little heat recently for hanging around people with bad theological reputations. Geez…they have no idea what kind of people I’m known to hang with…I have a history of consorting with heathens, heretics and reprobates. Theologians are often worse and sometimes better.
This word “Reformed.” We use it when it when, if and how it is helpful. It’s used so often it often means nothing. Tellingly, if it’s not right out of the heart of the Reformational thought forms it is not Reformed in any way that means anything very important.
When I’m using it seriously I can barely use it at all. It’s a serious word and people apply it like frosting at a birthday party. It can mean almost anything. We say George Whitfield was “reformed”. And Jonathan Edwards. And Charles Spurgeon. On Spurgeon, I’ve said it myself; does that really mean anything intelligible? He wasn’t “reformed” in any obvious sense. He was barely an anything if you’re trying to nail him down to a specific category – and I love him very much. The Prince of Preachers and all that.
Was Martin Luther Reformed? It’s a silly question. Maybe no one is if Martin Luther isn’t but he could never be ordained in my very reformed denomination, not at any level (and we have three offices). We love him from afar like a hero of the Greek poets, pretending he was not a real man and so we don’t have to make a judgment as to his orthodoxy on very important matters.
Could John Knox have been ordained in the contemporary Reformed churches (he started the Presbyterian church)? I don’t think so, he was too forthright a personality. I’ve been to a lot of ordinations in the PCA and I can tell you, I don’t think it’s possible he could make it through committee in most. Can you imagine them sending him off to one of their “ministry suitability workshop” and having him come back approved for winsome ministry by their psychologists and trainers?
And JOHN CALVIN. Really, It’s been a long time since I’ve met a minister that has read him (at least more than the famous footnotes version). Everyone claims him, no one reads him. I know everyone loves Tim Keller and John MacArthur and the other stalwarts of contemporary evangelical calvinistic culture but can you imaging him ordaining any one of them? More likely he would have had them arrested. Maybe, he would have been more serious than that… Anyway, I think he was Reformed.
That’s not to criticize those guys, they do noble and beneficial work but “Reformed”? It’s not even close, right? I mean, we could easily call John MacArthur a “Calvinist” but at that point we are winnowing down what we mean by following Calvin to such a skinny extreme its really lost its temper.
Read More
Related Posts: -
God’s Relationship to the World
Written by James E. Bruce |
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
If God is a father, then preferential, faithful, and self-sacrificial love becomes appropriate, and even expected. Justice will then be God’s faithful commitment to his children — if God relates to the world as a father.To say God must be the father of all people, you’ll need something stronger than the idea of fatherhood to get there. After all, we are mothers and brothers, teachers and preachers, customers and consumers — but we aren’t everything to everyone.
We have different kinds of relationships, and these relationships vary in scope. When we talk about God’s relationship to the world, we have to keep kind and scope in mind. It’s important to think about these things because what we think about God’s relationship to the world helps explain what we expect from God himself.
Let’s consider two questions about God’s relationship to the world.First, what kind of relationship does God have with people? Is it judicial? Familial? Economic? Communal? If that sounds complicated, it gets worse: These four categories are not mutually exclusive, so God can relate to the world (or parts of the world) in more than one way.
Second, what’s the scope of God’s relationship to the world? God may have one kind of relationship with all people or only with some people. Or perhaps God has one kind of relationship with all people, but another kind of relationship with only some.Relationships and Justice
First, what kind of relationship does God have with the world? This question is important! You tell me what kind of relationship you think God has with the world, and I’ll tell you what you think about the justice of God.
If God relates to humanity as a judge, God must punish wrongdoing. Desert, impartiality, and the rule of law will be appropriate categories for thinking about God’s activities and intentions. Justice will mean punishing and rewarding people appropriately — if God relates to the world as a judge.
If God is a father, then preferential, faithful, and self-sacrificial love becomes appropriate, and even expected. Justice will then be God’s faithful commitment to his children — if God relates to the world as a father.
If you think of God as a purveyor of opportunities — for salvation, for example— then an economic model may explain God’s relationship to the world. Justice will focus on whether or not people have the same opportunities, and what opportunity really means — if God is the one who brings opportunity.
Read More
Related Posts: -
John Newton’s Guidance for our Social Media Age
If we act in a wrong spirit—we shall bring little glory to God; do little good to our fellow creatures; and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves! If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side—you have an easy task! But I hope you have a far nobler aim; and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands!
A pastor wrote to John Newton about a public letter he was planning to write to a fellow pastor confronting him a aberrant doctrinal views. Newton took the opportunity to send back a letter full of gospel wisdom about the proper way an evangelical Christian should engage in correction and controversy. In our harsh, reactionary social media age Newton’s letter may be more applicable to our context than it was his context. Nevertheless, the biblical wisdom in his letter is applicable in any age.
I thought about simple providing a few excerpts from Newton’s letter but decided even though fewer people may read it they will benefit to a greater degree (C’mon, it is only 2,100 words). Other than adding some additional headings I have not made any changes to Newton’s letter.
A Guide to Godly Disputationby John Newton
Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the outcome of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of armor; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive that it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier—the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.
Respecting You Opponent
As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.
If You Consider Your Opponent to be a Believer
If you account him as a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly! The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others—from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven—he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now! Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.
If You Consider Your Opponent to be an Unbeliever
But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger! Alas! “He knows not what he does!” But you know who has made you to differ from him. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel! You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes—and not his!
Calvinists Should be the Most Gentle and Compassionate to Opponents
Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles, to the exercise of gentleness and compassion. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts—then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy! But if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is not to argue, but in meekness to “gently teach those who oppose the truth—if perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions which may exasperate their passions, or confirm them in their false principles, (humanly speaking).
Considering the Public as You Engage in Controversy
By printing your article, you will appeal to the public—where your readers may be ranged under three divisions:
Consider those with Whom You Differ in Principle
First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said.
Read More