j a m e s f o r s y t h ✡ n e t

Hi all, I’ve been a bit busy to post any original material here lately. I hope to soon.

I must say at the outset that I believe “grace” is a term closely linked to the idea of salvation - soteriology. Thus, below, when I closely link the term “grace” with “doctrines of grace” I hope I have not done so as an exercise in sophistry, but that they are, indeed, inextricably linked.

To not understand the concept of grace is a very sad thing for a Christian. Grace (XARIS) is something that is shown by God to humans in the act of the Cross of Christ. What an act of mercy it was that was shown to us on that day! How undeserving we are to be the beneficiaries of such love!

To define grace I couldn’t do better than a friend of A.W. Pink, who he quotes in a footnote on page 25 of his book The Sovereignty of God:

“An esteemed friend who kindly read through this book in its manuscript form, and to whom we are indebted for a number of excellent suggestions, has pointed out that grace is something more than “unmerited favour.” To feed a tramp who calls on me is “unmerited favour,” but it is scarcely grace. But suppose that after he has robbed me I should feed this starving tramp—that would be “grace.” Grace, then, is favour shown where there is positive de-merit in the one receiving it.”

Now, Pink cites this illustration not to explain anything about human relationships at all. Rather, he is talking about God.

No doubt, there are times when we can be imitators of his grace. In Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables (I’ve only seen the 1998 film which portrays this quite beautifully – I haven’t read the book), Bishop Myriel forgives Jean Valjean in a way that is a clear, stark reminder of the grace shown to Christians by God. Not that I deserve credit in any way, in a small handful of occasions I, myself, have been able to look to the Cross of Christ (and, of much lesser importance, to Bishop Myriel) and behave towards people in a more favourable way than I otherwise would have – and by my definition above, this only comes into play when someone has wronged me, not when it comes to run-of-the-mill human relations with no wrongdoing. However, even this is by no means the central thrust of the teachings about grace.

What is this central thrust? It may sound a cop-out, however, with regard to Scriptural quotations to illustrate my point, there are too many to number (and I do feel that “proof-texting” is overly maligned these days). I have on my lap my NIV complete concordance. A scan down the column indicates to me that grace originates in God, is of God and is primarily concerned with God.

There are three problems with Yancey’s book “What’s so Amazing about Grace” as I see it.

(1) Sometimes a popular book is so because it is populist. This book has the word “grace” in it’s title, and is a bestseller. Rather than reach for the book presented to us at the end of the aisle at Koorong (or, more typically, Word), we’re better off with C.H. Spurgeon’s “All of Grace”, for want of a book with “grace” in it’s title.

(2) The main enemy in Yancey’s book appear to be fundamentalist Christians. Sure, these guys have their problems, and I put aside for a moment the fact that I actually consider myself to be one of them. If we don’t listen to the fundamentalist Christians on the topic of grace, who do we listen to? Wasn’t it the Reformers and their progeny, indeed the Puritans and later the fundamentalists who inherited the teaching of the doctrines of grace? Indeed, a google search of “doctrines of grace” will show exactly where the term comes from. If the fundamentalists did not inherit the Calvinist tradition and teachings then which tradition did they inherit? These things cause me to conclude that it really is silly to write a book about grace whose main enemy is the fundamentalist Christian.

(3) As you know, Amazing Grace is a hymn by John Newton. To make use of the first line of this hymn as the title for this book, it begs the question: Would John Newton and Yancey agree or disagree on the subject of grace? Banner of Truth publishers refuse to publish any books that disagree with Calvinist teachings (doctrines of grace) – and they publish books about John Newton. John Newton is also known to have leant on the side of Calvinism, yet was relatively non-committal. He certainly didn’t see entirely eye-to-eye with the Wesleys on the issue/s. Given this, are Newton and Yancey on the same page? This is no small point. We’re talking about the very definition of grace, which is a very important subject to a Christian. To me it would be more forgivable if Yancey had written a book which gave God his rightful glory, rather than robbing it and giving it to humans, but had a spelling error in the title. “Whats so Amazing about Garce” or something. Maybe one could say that Yancey was more in agreement with Wesley. Let him quote Wesley then.

Further to the above, do even Wesley and Yancey agree on grace? A quick google found the following God-centered article: http://godonly.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/john-wesley-on-grace/

Advocate (1 John 2:1)
The Almighty (Revelation 1:8)
Alpha & Omega (Revelation 22:13)
The Amen (Revelation 3:14)
Anchor (Hebrews 6:19)
Author & Finisher of Our Faith (Hebrews 12:2)
The Beloved (Ephesians 1:6)
Branch (Isaiah 11:1)
Bread of Life (John 6:35)
Bridegroom (Matthew 9:15)
Bright Morning Star (Revelation 22:16)
Carpenter (Mark 6:3)
Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20)
Dayspring (Luke 1:78)
The Door (John 10:9)
Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6)
Faithful & True Witness (Revelation 3:14)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11)
Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)
High Priest (Hebrews 6:20)
Holy One (Mark 1:24)
The I Am (John 8:58)
Image of the Invisible God (Colossians 1:15)
Immanuel (Matthew 1:23)
Judge (Acts 10:42)
King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
King of Kings (1 Timothy 6:15)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5)
Living Water (John 4:10)
Lord of Lords (1 Timothy 6:15)
Man of Sorrows (Isaiah 53:3)
Master (Matthew 8:19)
Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)
Messiah (Daniel 9:25)
Only Begotten Son (John 3:16)
Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)
Prophet (Matthew 21:11)
Redeemer (Job 19:25)
Resurrection & the Life (John 11:25)
The Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4)
Rose of Sharon (Song of Solomon 2:1)
Saviour (John 4:42)
Servant (Matthew 12:18)
Shepherd & Bishop of Souls (1 Peter 2:25)
Shiloh (Genesis 49:10)
Son of Man (Matthew 20:28)
Teacher (John 3:2)
True Vine (John 15:1)
The Way, the Truth, & the Life (John 14:6)
Wonderful Counsellor (Isaiah 9:6)
The Word (John 1:1)

I know it’s not a hymn, but I do like this song. I don’t plan on making a category for Contemporary Christian Music.

Last night on SBS there was a worthwhile documentary called Traders’ Dreams. It was about Ebay, its popularity, competitors and some profiles of a few of their valued key merchants (valued because of the money they make from them).

Major competitor, Alibaba, is a Chinese company which is resisting Ebay’s dominance, mainly because of their inability to escape their English/German box and a refusal to adopt new business models.

Anyhow. One of the interviewees from the Alibaba side used the Chinese idiom 知彼知己, which means “know your enemy and know yourself”. I checked this out in another dictionary, which switches the second and fourth hanzi, thus 知己知彼, meaning “know yourself and know your enemy”.

I’d appreciate any input as to which version of this idiom is the most common. (I’ve since been advised that the correct version is 知己知彼, and that it is followed by (方能?)百战不殆.

知己知彼方能百战不殆.

I also think this idiom is not entirely incompatible with Christianity. Jesus tells us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), but he never actually denies that we do have enemies. A liberal minister once tried to pull the wool over my eyes with this idea, it leads nowhere.

The actual conversion of a person to Christianity involves the realisation that Christ died in their place. The modern world looks at Christianity with some unexplainable kind of disdain. The believer can’t do enough to express sufficient gratitude to the Saviour who has done so much for them. The Lord Jesus Christ is so totally marvellous, heroic and radiantly glorious. All Christians have been thoroughly transformed into people who rightly look to further glorify their Lord.

Christ is possibly the person in history of whom the most details of his life are known. Michael H. Hart’s The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History places Mohammed as first in favour of Jesus, who is second (or third). However, a review by J.Jones clears things up a bit (you’ll need to scroll through his reviews to find it). Little detail about Mohammed’s life is known even among Muslims.

Christ’s teachings, taken as a whole, are totally unlike any other religious leader ever to set face on this earth. Furthermore, he spoke with authority (Mark 1:22), though never seeking authority for himself (John 14:10).

Jesus has been attacked from so many sides in recent years it’s unbelievable. A recent article in Quadrant magazine questioned his very existence. It wasn’t long till that drivel was very ably refuted.

I’ve been worshipping Christ since July 1991 and whenever I look back I don’t see anything much worthwhile.