The Bible says the Church matures as saints speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) — and we have neglected both. We have accepted a dichotomy between these virtues that doesn’t in fact exist and have reaped the impotence our disobedience deserves. 

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbour, lest you incur sin because of him.” (Leviticus 19:17)
When it comes to speech, Christians have been catechized by the world far more than the Scriptures. Consider how we cringe at open statements of the truth and balk at hard words delivered in boldness. Or how we instinctively wince at correction and assume, in synchrony with our culture, that any word that fails to affirm another’s perceived identity is necessarily unloving. To say to someone, as Jesus did, “You are quite wrong,” immediately strikes us as inappropriate (Mk. 12:27). Worse still, we conceal our cowardice by telling ourselves we’re simply being kind or that we’re looking for a way to tell the truth without being divisive. 
The glaring reality remains, however, that we are far less biblical than we imagine. The only thing that binds our tongues is fear, not love. 
The trouble with these mistaken notions is that the conduit of love in the Scriptures is very often hard words.
Read More
Related Posts:

The presence of God, represented by the angel Gabriel, appeared to Zechariah and to Mary. Next, we see the presence of God with an unnamed angel who proclaims Jesus’ birth to the shepherds. God interrupted their humble job as caretakers of sheep, which led to their assignment as the first evangelists to share the good news. As the Theology of Work Bible Commentary (vol. 4) notes,  “God is able to break into the midst of everyday life with his goodness and glory.”

In this Advent season, we celebrate the birth of Immanuel, who brought God’s presence to us. As we live in between Jesus’s first and second comings, the reality of his presence affects every aspect of our lives at church, at home, and at work.
Luke’s version of the Christmas story offers glimpses of men and women of faith—ordinary workers, like you and me—who illustrate the repeated biblical connection between God’s presence and human work, which I call Immanuel labor. I invite you to join me as I unpack their stories, share some observations, and consider how to apply these principles to experience God’s presence at work.
Zechariah’s Work
The first character Luke introduces us to in the Christmas story is Zechariah, an ordinary priest. His wife, Elizabeth, was barren (we also later learn she is a close relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother). When Zechariah was doing his duty serving in the temple, he was randomly chosen to burn incense. Luke tells us that there, in the middle of carrying out his job, an angel of the Lord appeared to him, announcing that Elizabeth would bear a son who would “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk. 1:5-17).
This divine encounter undoubtedly enabled Zechariah to continue his priestly work in a new light, but it also gave him a new role: the father of the boy who would grow up to be John the Baptist. As we consider how God’s presence with Zechariah might apply to us, perhaps our most significant contributions to God’s Kingdom are not what we accomplish, but what God will do through the children we raise.
Mary’s Faith 
Like Zechariah, Mary is an example of an ordinary parent raising an extraordinary son—and thus another great example of God’s presence connecting with human work. However, Mary’s faith in God was deeper and her work far more profound.
God was present with Mary as the Holy Spirit came upon her at Jesus’s conception (Lk. 1:35). God was present while she was in labor to deliver the Deliverer. Through the pain of childbirth that Eve was cursed with in Genesis 3:16, Jesus was born so that we could be born again. God was present with her as Jesus’ loving mother as she worked daily to meet his human needs.
In reading Mary’s song of praise (Lk. 1:46-55), we see that she not only understood God’s omnipresence with his chosen people, but that she had experienced his presence personally.
Read More
Related Posts:

If assent and trust were synonyms, then either both would mean cognitive conviction or else volitional reliance. Conviction of truth (assent) could never give way to reliance upon truth (trust). If assent and trust are indistinguishable concepts and, therefore, mean the same thing, then it would be unintelligible to say that we rely upon anything we believe; nor would it be sensible to think that we believe anything we rely upon. Intellectual assent without reliance leaves no room for trusting in Christ.

It has been argued by some Arminians (usually antinomians) and Calvinists (usually Clarkians) that we are justified by belief alone and that receiving and resting in Christ unpacks what it is to believe. In other words, receiving and resting in Christ is considered a figure of speech by which belief in Christ can be defined. It’s alleged that trusting in Christ alone does not complete justifying belief because trust is synonymous with belief. Therefore, to add receiving and resting in Christ to belief is either redundant or to add something additional to the instrumental cause of justification. The first deviation from the aberrant assent-alone view would be considered by those who hold to it a matter of muddled thinking, but the gospel would remain intact although jumbled. Whereas the second construct would undermine the grace by which we are saved, appropriated by belief alone.
Those who promote the belief alone view are sometimes met with tedious rejoinders such as the false dichotomy “we’re saved by Christ not propositional belief.” Notwithstanding, more serious objections have been raised against the belief alone position aimed at the group’s insistence upon reducing justifying faith to mere assent. This is where things get a bit nuanced.
Not All Beliefs Involve the Will
Most of the things we assent to, whether a priori or a posteriori, are not volitional. One does not will to believe that God exists any more than one wills to believe the rose is red. These are mental assents that are not discursive; they are immediate and without reflection. The will is bypassed.1 However, the gospel always engages the will as the unbeliever counts the cost and by grace abandons all hope in himself while looking to Christ alone, finding rest in Him. Accordingly, it is inadequate to reduce justifying faith to belief alone when belief is reduced to intellectual assent without remainder.
Equivocal Language Confuses
It is at this point some assert that assent is synonymous with trust in Christ. In this context it is opined that to assent to Christ dying on the cross for my sins is to trust the proposition is true. Albeit the premise is true, this observation turns on a subtle equivocation over the word trust. Indeed, to trust a proposition is true is no different than to assent to its truth. So, in that sense trust and assent are synonyms. However, to trust that something is true is not the same thing as to trust in that something. The latter idea of trust carries the meaning of reliance, whereas the former use of trust merely conveys an intellectual assent that might or might not be accompanied by the reliance sort of trust. Accordingly, to argue that trust and assent are synonymous is to deny the need to willfully trust in Christ alone for salvation.
Read More
Related Posts: