The verse in which Isaiah cries out "Woe is me! For I am a man of unclean lips!" leaps to mind - a prophet so close to God aware of his own lack and sinfulness.

A similar experience to yours happened to me once when I implored God to reveal the depth of my own sin, and within a short time I got very sick. It's not pretty, but I'll not soon forget seeing the vomit and likening the wretchedness of it to the ugliness of sin. It may sound strange or gross here in the printed word, but the reality of it made an impression on me.

Recently it's come to my attention how afraid people (myself included) who are (or claim to be) Christians don't credit Jesus as the One Who changes lives and their souls, granting true life, but instead credit Christianity or faith or something other than His Name. This may sound to be tangential, but I think it's at the heart of what you're saying.

Christ alone gives this love of which you write. And only He can impart the love into us and reveal Truth that effects real change.

Another verse that leaps to mind after reading your post is "He who is forgiven little loves little."

 

Anon, I had actually used that verse (Luke 7:47 - the one who is forgiven little, the same loves little) in my original draft, but I found in order to apply it, I had to expound what was meant by it - which while easy to summarize, struck me as a bit over the top, and perhaps worthy of its own post.

The one who is persuaded that his own efforts are producing spiritual dividends doesn't understand his own depravity, and in the zeal of this ignorance will attempt to press himself into the mold of a Christian in his own strength; either wearing himself out in failure, or flatter himself into thinking his own efforts, however empty are nevertheless productive.

The one who understands his own depravity, doesn't set about trying to cure it, nor does he ignore it. He isn't trying to make himself acceptable to God, but rests in Christ, knowing he is forgiven. He sees therefore a real and present danger in mixing his own fallen affections with the affections of Christ, but searches his own motive in all that he does to ensure that what he does is not done to purchase God's favor, but is done because Christ within Him desires it.

The one who is "forgiven much" is the one who has learned that there is nothing in himself to commend him to God, and who therefore is less inclined to "make up the difference" through the sort of empty personal effort that characterizes immature faith. This one, having grabbed hold of the truth that Christ is in him, will rest from his own works and enter into Christ's work, which is characterized by genuine love - not the affection, but putting others before yourself. Not the obliteration of personhood as some imagine, but rather the redemption of personhood - whereby we begin to walk in love as God intended, and this in the personalities that makde up our identity apart from our fallen nature.

I think that is an important thing, but it is also a meaty thing, and desiring not to give my readers too much indigestion, I decided to save it for another time.

Thanks for the comment.

 

Daniel, I would love to read sometime a post from you on the Christian struggle that some of us have: continually aware of our own lack and sin - not fully resting in Christ - trusting His work and His saving grace, but not resting in it. If that makes sense.

In other words, I believe I trust Christ fully for what only He can accomplish. Likewise, trusting in His righteousness alone as imputed to me for justification and His ongoing work in me to sanctify me as I submit to His Spirit.

So why do I still experience restlessness? Sometimes I struggle with understanding Scripture - such as recently with Matthew 5:20 and 11:11, both of which have Christ speaking of righteousness and/or greatness as it applied to certain men (Pharisees on the one hand, John the Baptist on the other) and unless the audience (including us) were as righteous than the Pharisees, they would in no way enter the kingdom of heaven. Or in the case of John the Baptist, the least in the kindgom of heaven is greater than he.

These statements of Christ's sound similar in a certain regard, yet there are a few differences I can slightly discern. In the case of John, perhaps it is a statement of difference regarding eras (pre-incarnation versus post-ascention) or of men on earth vs spiritual kingdom realities. In the Pharisees case, it may be a statement regarding there is no one but Christ who is ultimately righteous enough to save. Yet both verses strike a similar chord to me.

When I read words of Christ and seek but still struggle with understanding, therein lies my restlessness.

 

Thinking more on this, a few thoughts crossed my mind. While I agree with the gist of your post - that is, our fleshly love and contemporary definition or understanding of same is self-driven, even non-believers who aren't parents have a sense of compassion for children in third world countries when they see images of them in advertisements or read news stories of tragedies.

I think that even while this reality is true - that of people who are neither believers nor parents, having a sense of compassion for unrelated children - it demonstrates a worldly humanity or humanism.

That said, this is still part of our fleshly earthly nature even in believers. We feel compassion with emphasis on the prefix "com-" meaning "with"; We feel a "likeness" with them.

And on that same thought, I have heard before that love is an action, not a feeling, yet I think this too is short-sighted. Love is also a feeling, not in the worldly sense portrayed in movies, but in the sense that our feelings are not necessarily out of place. They too are given to us by God, yet often misplaced or not submitted to the Spirit.

Just like the Bible says, Be angry, but do not sin. Anger iss an emotion - much as love, but an emotion that in the believer needs to be driven or submitted as like in the parable of the Good Samaritan, with always the reminder that we love because He first loved us.

It's impossible to truly love without the Spirit of God.

 

Anon (1) - So why do I still experience restlessness?

Matthew 5:20 tells us that the scribes and the Pharisees were, contrary to popular opinion at the time, not righteous. They had become masters at giving the appearance of righteousness (the outside of their cup looked clean), but inside they were corrupt, that is, all their (seeming) righteousnesses were as filthy rags to God. The righteousness that surpasses this is not our own, but is in us through Christ (it is His righteousness).

Matthew 11:11 hinges on what we understand the kingdom of heaven to be. John the Baptist was certainly saved (under the old covenant economy), but was not alive when the New Covenant came into effect. The New Covenant brought better promises. John the baptist was second to none under the old testament economy, but for all that, he possessed less than the least of the New Covenant saints who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and possessed of the full revelation of God through the words of the Apostles. John was great in every way a man could be great under the old covenant, but the least saint in the New Covenant possesses more than he did.

However personally righteous Abraham might have been, his personal righteousness could not wipe awe the stain of his sins, however minute they might seem to us today. It was his faith by which he was accounted righteous, and so we see a distinction between that which is personal and imperfect, and that which is by faith, perfect and imputed. Our fellowship with God depends on the former, while our relationship with him the latter.

I find that I am only restless when I mix those two up.

 

Anon (2) - "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

One can go through all the external motions that love would produce, without possessing love - and doing so gains the one who does it nothing.

In the same way, one can act entirely in the love that God supplies without drawing it from the well of their own emotions/affections.

Our emotions are as corrupt as the rest of us, which is why we must regard even our own emotions as something not to be relied upon, but rather something which must, along with the rest of us, submit to the yoke of Christ. A good and right emotion is a blessing from God - but our emotions are intended to punctuate our reality, not direct it - which is where some people mess up. They think that our affections are given to guide and direct us, to provoke us, and to motivate us. That’s all fine sounding when we are talking about compassion and feeding the poor, or giving of ourselves to others, but how it falls apart when we talk of greed, or lust, or of hate.

You make a fitting point in reminding us that emotion itself is not a sin, but that it can lead to sin - anger or indifference, love or empathy, all can lead us to sin. How many underage teens engage in sin because they are “in love”?

Anyway - good points, thanks.

 

Daniel,

First of all, thank you very much for entertaining my thoughts on the verses in Matthew.

I'm going to have to chew on your first response re: Matt 5:20 and 11:11 for awhile. I appreciate the clarification between the two texts. I had read elsewhere of 11:11 referring to two different eras (covenantal times).

While I understand it intellectually, I am reminded of a long-time sadness I feel for those who were under the Old Covenant. Today, we know too well the struggle of flesh and Spirit in ourselves as believers and how Paul describes the battle; It grabs my heart therefore to imagine what it must have been like for "believers" looking forward to Christ without the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit. I don't know how they managed. When I queried a former pastor of mine about it, he remarked, "Don't feel sorry for them. They were just sinners like the rest of us." It left me unsatisfied and still saddened for those of faith at that time.

Re: Matthew 5:20 specifically, you write: "the scribes and the Pharisees were, contrary to popular opinion at the time, not righteous." True, but if it were contrary to public opinion at the time, how might that have been received by the original audience? In other words, does it make sense to the hearers of that day? Most people, I presume, would have thought "I can't do that. How can one exceed their righteousness?"

Ahhh, perhaps the lightbulb just went off. Perhaps it was a way to illustrate that, not unlike the 613 commandments (and the Ten Commandments), no one can keep them all. It was another way of illustrating their own lack and need of a Savior.

Sometimes I get stuck on words of Christ's and why He phrased things the way He did. I ponder then if these things are hidden from me, but I tend not to go too far down that path because I know the Lord never leaves me alone. He continually is changing me as I submit to His Lordship. His Spirit has illumined the Word for me over the past decade, although when I find myself scratching my head over a particular text, I can't rest until I gain understanding.

 

Daniel,

You wrote: "Our fellowship with God depends on the former, while our relationship with him the latter. I find that I am only restless when I mix those two up."

With respect to the former (and the latter), you wrote "It was his faith by which he was accounted righteous, and so we see a distinction between that which is personal and imperfect, and that which is by faith, perfect and imputed."

I don't understand. What is the "former" that our fellowship depends on? It can't be the personal and imperfect, for how do we understand fellowship?

Even with respect to the latter - a relationship with God - well, even unbelievers have a "relationship" with God, albeit one of His wrath upon them. I understand what you mean perhaps by a relationship with God - that is, a justified position that allows for interaction with Him and frees us to serve Him in a pleasing manner under His grace and mercy.

But I don't understand the first part with respect to how fellowship depends on the former (that which is personal and imperfect). What is the former exactly and how does fellowship with God depend on it?

Are you saying perhaps that the way we are uniquely created in our personalities and intangible elements that define each individual person is how our fellowship with Him is defined or structured?

 

Anon,

It is only when a believer is walking currently acting in obedience to God, that is, only when a believer is submitted to the Holy Spirt (ie:"walking in the Spirit") that the believer is having "fellowship" with God. When a believer obeys his own desires (walks "carnally") that believer is not in "fellowship" with God. His relationship with God hasn't changed in that God is not suddenly his enemy or such, but rather he, by setting God aside to pursue some personal agenda, cannot be said to be in fellowship with God.

The word fellowship, as I am using it, describes being in the Spirit, or being actively humbled in our obedience to God. It isn't a one-time thing, we can be in the Spirit one minute, and in the flesh the next. When we are in the Spirit we are in fellowship, and when we are in the flesh we are not in fellowship.

This has nothing to do with our eternal standing, or with the grace God extends to us as sons (and daughters). God does not change His countenance towards us when we sin, but when we sin God cannot fellowship with us either.

That is the distinction.

Our personal conduct is imperfect, and our fellowship with God reflects this. If we were perfect in our obedience, our fellowship would be undisturbed, but when we walk in the flesh, that fellowship is disturbed.

Think of it as a still pool of water so still that you can see clear through to the bottom perfectly. When you disturb the pool, you can no longer see the bottom clearly, but the pool itself hasn't lost anything. So also, when you are in the Spirit, there is nothing to disturb your communion with God, but when you are in the flesh, that communion is upset. Your relationship with God is the same (just as the pool is still a pool, and hasn't lost anything for being disturbed), only your fellowship is disturbed.

Let me know if that helps.

 

I see. You were just using the term fellowship for walking in the Spirit - being obedient to the Spirit within us - and this keeps us in fellowship with God.

I hear the word "fellowship" so often misused to mean just getting together with other Christians that the word has, I fear, sadly become watered down from its original NT meaning.