Enablement: Words Don’t Always Mean What We Think They Mean to Others
My dear Paul asked if I would write my perspective on being enabled by the Holy Spirit. We are having differences of opinion on what enablement means. I realize that my perspective will not be full of theological depth, proof texts, or biblical word analysis. My perspective will come from a personal angle.
My first inclination is to say, “Yes. The Holy Spirit enables us to do the will of the Father.” However, all the enablement was given to us at salvation. I must appropriate that enablement in order to accomplish the will of my heavenly Father.
Consider these examples:
a) By strength man is enabled to work.
b) Wealth enables men to be charitable or to live in luxury.
c) The law enables us to dispose of our property by will.
d) Learning and industry enable men to investigate the laws of nature.
The outside source, whether a person, event, or thing renders one capable or able to accomplish some task. A person must act upon that enablement in order to accomplish the desired activity. Strength enables one to work, but if strength is not applied, work is not accomplished. The rope enables you to secure yourself when you climb the mountain. The rope will not do the mountain climbing for you. You must use the enablement (rope) to accomplish the desired task (climbing the mountain). The Holy Spirit supplies the enablement ( at salvation), the believer must appropriate the enablement in order to accomplish the will of the Father. The enabler (Holy Spirit) is always there, the enablement (strength, power, ability ) have already been provided, the believer appropriates it.
There is another consideration with enablement. In today’s society if one is labeled an enabler it connotes a negative and undesirable accusation. Consider this example:
Hi. My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about being an enabler. Not me. I was a loving, caring, submissive Christian wife whose goal in marriage was to build up my husband with honor and respect. After all, we were going to serve the Lord together. Our vows were taken from the book of Ruth: where you go I will go. We lit the unity candle signifying to all who came to our wedding that we were going to be one flesh, one mind, one heart. I was a good Christian wife, not an enabler. An enabler helps people continue in their addictions. An enabler is a wimpy, floor mat of a wife who has no life of her own apart from her husband’s wishes and whims. That certainly was not Susan St. Denis! I was not an enabler.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about my being an enabler. Yes, me. I finally admitted it to myself ,to my pastor and to my closest friends. The counsel I received from my pastor was to keep trying to “fix” what was broken in my first husband, Wayne. I needed to show Wayne that I needed him. I was to become a Total Christian Woman, the perfect, submissive wife. In doing so he would see that his addictions could not give him what I could provide. I was told by my pastors that I was not submissive enough and had a rebellious spirit and when I got right with the Lord, then my husband would follow suit. Sadly, this “biblical” counsel given to me by my pastors only fueled his addictions and deepened my enablement. In my attempts at fixing, I also rescued, coached him when he tried recovery programs, nursed him back to health after being beat almost to death by his drug dealers, and was his cheerleader during the sober times. I was his bank, his bill payer, his bail bondsman, and the accountable one. I was an enabler, a martyr, lost and wounded. However, without me to help him he would have had to face the consequences of his actions and that might have interfered with his continued use. I protected him from consequences and from himself. Sadly, I enabled him to die an early death at the age of 55. Two years before his death, I stopped running interference for him, stopped making excuses, and stopped shielding him from the consequences of his addictions. He died of congestive heart failure, and a diabetic coma all directly related to his alcohol addiction. IF I had not assumed the role of enabler would Wayne’s life have taken a different course?
When Paul asked me to write comments about the Holy Spirit being an enabler, I cringed. You can certainly see how this term bears many negative connotations for me, and to associate enabling to the work of the Holy Spirit evokes unpleasant thoughts. I would rather think of the Holy Spirit as my helper as we co-labor together to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord. However, when I became a believer I was enabled by the Holy Spirit with the same power that resurrected our Lord from the dead. I was rescued from hell, saved from the penalty of sin, redeemed by His blood, forgiven, justified by faith, and empowered by the Holy Spirit on that day I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit’s enablement (being empowered) is a one time event. He does have a continual role in my life as His child. He convicts of sin, He is a helper, a comforter, a counselor, an advocate with the Father.
When I hear or read of someone who says that “the Holy Spirit enabled them to do thus and so” it makes me wonder, “In what way?” Are they saying that the Holy Spirit shielded consequences so that the activity so desired can continue? Are they saying the Holy Spirit smoothed things out so as to not to rock the boat? Are they saying that the Holy Spirit provided financial assets so that choices can continue? Knowing what the term enable means and all its ramifications, I encourage believers to use it with care. Coming from my personal experience of 36 years of being an enabler, and how today’s world sees enablement, another biblical term would seem more appropriate to describe the work of the Holy Spirit.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler.
Vows, Car Doors, Coats and Chairs
You see it every now and then; a husband opening the car door for his wife, or the event at Perkins that prompted this post: an elderly man stood up first to hold up his wife’s open coat for her to fill. After all those years? Then I had a light bulb moment: “Why not? Isn’t one of the ’till death does us part’—also to—’cherish’?” It would seem that us men take the faithfulness and love part of the wedding vow much more serious than we take the “cherish” part.
What does “cherish” mean? Well, it’s actually a little more focused than love. You can love anybody, especially if your a Christian. We are commanded to love our enemies, right? Cherish means: ”To cling fondly or inveterately to: to cherish a memory” (Dictionary.com). Cherishing necessarily requires display; that’s why I like the cited definition. When we cherish a memory, we do what? Usually, we have taken pictures, framed them, and displayed them at home and work. We are never commanded in the Bible to cherish our enemies. To cherish is to set love on fire. Guess what the antonym for cherish is? Answer: “neglect.” That’s key.
As Christians, I believe we have been given all we need for life and godliness. In fact, Ephesians 4:24 indicates that we have been given the full righteousness and holiness of Christ. Therefore, the apostle Paul commands us to “put on the new.” Pity: so much of today’s discussion concerning the law of God is framed around “obligation.” Obligation?—biblical commands are an invitation to appropriate and put on the righteousness given to us by Christ. Biblical commands are an invitation to set love on fire! Pity: many are taught today that Christ not only bankrupted heaven to give us His righteousness, but he also puts on that righteousness for us, and while we wait for Christ to do our part, the love of God is hidden under a bushel basket. To cherish is to display the love already given, IF we believe Ephesians 4:24.
Besides men, we promise, we vow, and before witnesses. I guess the guy that was at Perkins gets that part. God is very serious about vows. He says it’s better not to make any than to make one and not keep it. In fact, Psalms 15:1,4 says that vow-keeping is the mark of a righteous person:
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?…. who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;” (NIV@2011).
Want another version?
“….in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;”(ESV).
As these verses indicate, vow-keeping isn’t always easy, but don’t look at this as an indictment, look at it as an invitation to display love already given. Look at it as an invitation to display the importance of what is important to God. Look at it as an invitation to publicly display that you love your wife like Christ loves the church. Look at it as an invitation to set love on fire, and do so at every opportunity—even using car doors, coats, and chairs.
paul
Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Do you Misrepresent the Pharisees? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian
I heard it again yesterday in a Sunday morning message: the Pharisees were really,really good at keeping the Law, but at the end of the day Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. Alas, proof that we can’t be justified by keeping the Law (which no one would argue with). The pastor, in this message that is one of many in his series on The Sermon on the Mount, even said something like this: “The Pharisees’ efforts at keeping the Law wasn’t the issue, they were good at keeping the Law.” But is that true? And by the way, considering who the audience was at that church (primarily saints gathered for worship and the hearing of the word), and the fact that his topic was the role of the Law in Christian living, why was he even discussing justification in that context? Based on his view of the Pharisees and their supposed efforts to be justified by keeping the Law, one of his statements to *us* was “you don’t keep the Law by trying to keep the Law.” Hmmm, really?
We certainly are not justified by “trying” to keep the Law, but should we try to keep the Law in order to please and obey our Lord? Yes, I think so. Now, I don’t know this pastor very well, but I know him well enough to know that he wouldn’t dream of synthesizing justification and sanctification, but due to the fact that our present church culture is awash in an antinomian doctrine that does just that, are pastors propagating such a synthesis unawares? Yes, I think so. In his sermon notes, the top of the page has statements like ”Things Jesus wants us (“us” would presumably be Christians) to know about the Law.” The top part of the notes are also replete with “we” in regard to the Law, but the bottom part has statements like: “We live in the Age of Grace; salvation is not of works,” but yet, the whole message clearly regards the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. Therefore, whether unawares or otherwise, he clearly extended the relationship of the Law in regard to Justification into the realm of sanctification.
Here is where we must call on our good friend Jeff Foxworthy who developed a program for helping people who may be rednecks but don’t know it. He presents several different questions from different angles of thought, and depending on the answers to the questions, “you just might be a redneck.” Likewise, if you misrepresent the Pharisees, you just might be an antinomian without knowing it.
First of all, we can see from the very same proof text used to demonstrate the idea above that the Pharisees were not guilty of attempting to keep the Law in order to be justified:
[19] “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19,20).
So, as the reasoning goes, verse 19 indicates that “we” should revere God’s Law, but since the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law (an assumed interpretive criteria) we shouldn’t “try” to keep the Law because that’s what they tried to do, and our righteousness must surpass theirs because you can’t be saved by keeping the Law (and again, why are we discussing salvation in this context to begin with?). But we can see just from this text alone that this interpretation is not true. In every literal English translation that I could find, the coordinating conjunction “for” links verses 19 and 20. As we know, coordinating conjunctions join two complete ideas together and indicates the connection between the two. In all cases, the translators saw fit to translate the conjunction “for” from the Greek texts. If Jesus was contrasting the two ideas, a different conjunction would have been used like “but,” ie., the Pharisees do verse 19 really well, “but” not perfectly, therefore you need a righteousness that is perfect (this is true, but not what Christ is referring to here). No, the conjunction used is “for” which indicates “reason”(reason why): because the Pharisees were guilty of verse 19, they (the audience) were not going to enter the kingdom of heaven if they where like the Pharisees in regard to habitually breaking the Law of God and teaching others to do so. Also, I think the Lord’s reference to being the least or the greatest “in the kingdom” (verse 19) is in reference to degree and set against the example of the Pharisees who were guilty of doing (breaking the Law and teaching others to do so) habitually which was an indication that their souls were in peril. Therefore, even if the assumption regarding the Pharisees ability to obey the Law outwardly is true, it’s the wrong transition; a better transition would be “but” and would read something like this: “Christians should obey the Law ‘but’ even if you keep the law as good as the Pharisees do, it will not get you into the kingdom, so you need a righteousness that surpasses theirs.”
Granted, depending on how you diagram the sentence, you might be able to make a case either way, but is it true that the Pharisees were experts at keeping the Law outwardly? No. From other Scriptures we know that the Pharisees were guilty of verse nineteen; specifically, they replaced the Law with their own traditions. That’s why Jesus immediately launches into the whole “you have heard that it was said….but I tell you”starting in the following sentence (verse21). Not only that, Jesus says specifically in Matthew 15:1-9 that His contention with the Pharisees (and the teachers of the law as exactly referred to in verse 20) was the fact that they twisted the Scriptures according to their traditions:
[1] Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, [2]”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”[3] Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ [5] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ [6] he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”
The Pharisees were not proficient at keeping God’s law outwardly. In fact, they didn’t do so at all, but rather propagated teachings that were “rules taught by men.” Therefore, the Pharisees were guilty of neglecting the true Law and teaching others to do so (Matthew 5:19). They were not the poster-children for some campaign to demonstrate the futility of Law-keeping, especially in regard to believers. In fact, Christ said their lax attitude toward the Law was indicative of those who will not enter the kingdom. For this reason the Pharisees were not the greatest in heaven as the masses supposed, but the least, if they were even in the kingdom at all. Therefore, when Christ told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, He wasn’t talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ that the Pharisees were supposedly trying to obtain themselves for salvation (besides, they were not attempting to do that to begin with as I have demonstrated), but rather the true righteous behavior demanded of kingdom citizens. If Christ was talking about an imputed righteousness (for sanctification), why would He have not simply said so? For example: “Your righteousness must not only exceed that of the Pharisees (which wouldn’t have been hard to do anyway, and therefore by no means a profound statement by Christ), but ( a contrast conjunction) must be a righteousness that comes from God alone”…for sanctification.
If you misrepresent the Pharisees as the first century poster-children for “let go and let God theology” because they supposedly tried to keep the Law, you just might be an antinomian. But in part two, we discuss another question that may give credence to the possibility: Do you misrepresent obedience as outward alone? Well then, you just may be an antinomian.
paul
2 Peter Chapter One: Obtaining a Rich Entry
It is so very tempting for me to think that 2 Peter chapter one is one of the most important segments of Scripture in all of the Bible. Peter writes this letter towards the end of his life, and the truth that he wants to continually remind them of is in verses 5-11. This is a primary focus of his teaching in the final lap, so that they will recall these things after he is gone:
“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things”(verses 12-15).
What things? The things he previously writes of in verses 5-8. It is sort of a if you forget everything else I write, don’t forget this exhortation.
What is the end of following this instruction? Peter states the end of this teaching in verse 11:
“and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
The goal of this teaching is a rich entry into the kingdom. Obviously then, we can have an unfortunate entry fraught with fear and doubt. Peter states this by antithesis in verses 9 and 10:
“But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,”
This is what Matthew Henry said in regard to the above text:
“He cannot see far off. This present evil world he can see, and dotes upon, but has no discerning at all of the world to come, so as to be affected with the spiritual privileges and heavenly blessings thereof. He who sees the excellences of Christianity must needs be diligent in endeavours after all those graces that are absolutely necessary for obtaining glory, honour, and immortality; but, where these graces are not obtained nor endeavoured after, men are not able to look forward to the things that are but a very little way off in reality, though in appearance, or in their apprehension, they are at a great distance, because they put them far away from them; and how wretched is their condition who are thus blind as to the awfully great things of the other world, who cannot see any thing of the reality and certainty, the greatness and nearness, of the glorious rewards God will bestow on the righteous, and the dreadful punishment he will inflict on the ungodly!
But this is not all the misery of those who do not add to their faith virtue, knowledge, etc. They are as unable to look backward as forward, their memories are slippery and unable to retain what is past, as their sight is short and unable to discern what is future; they forget that they have been baptized, and had the means, and been laid under the obligations to holiness of heart and life. By baptism we are engaged in a holy war against sin, and are solemnly bound to fight against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Often call to mind, and seriously meditate on, your solemn engagement to be the Lord’s, and your peculiar advantages and encouragements to lay aside all filthiness of flesh and spirit.”
Following Peter’s instruction as contained in verses 5-8 results in a surety of our election. Obviously, we cannot earn our election, but following Peter’s instruction will make us sure that we belong to God. If one is sure that they belong to the kingdom and have extensive knowledge of its glories, they are truly unshakable and will not stumble in this present life. Peter says to be “eager” and diligent to make our calling sure, resulting in a rich entry into the kingdom of God.
Peter teaches the practice that leads to this rich entry in verses 5-8:
“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Again, Peter emphasizes the importance of effort on our part. We are to make “every” effort to add these qualities to our life. To the degree that we practice these things, we will have surety and a rich entry into heaven. The goal is to implement these qualities in increasing measure, which also keeps us from being unproductive in our knowledge Christ. To the degree that we know Christ, we can effectively follow him as he commanded. However, sandwiched in between these qualities is the working together of knowledge and practice (add). We can’t follow what we don’t know, so adding knowledge is of great import, but the Holy Spirit will not give a continued, increased understanding along with true discernment without our practice. This is a theme throughout Scripture (John 7:17 Hebrews 5:14).
Peter starts with the foundation of faith which can only come from God, and then we supplement or add to faith the following seven categorical qualities: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and finally, love. Don’t miss this: all of these qualities are connected or build on each other. You can’t build on any of these qualities without the foundation of the prior. You can’t add knowledge to faith unless you have goodness first. Peter doesn’t say to add knowledge to faith, he says to add goodness, and then knowledge, and so forth. Call it a building; the foundation is faith, and each floor provides a foundation for the next until you get to the top floor which is love. Or call it a chain; the chain is made up of eight links, and it is not a complete chain without all of the links. But I prefer to think of this concept as an electrical circuit. Every electrical circuit needs a power source and a proper load (components on the circuit and complete connection between them) to work properly.
Whatever your analogy, we are on safe ground as follows: it is absolutely essential that all of these elements are in operation daily in order for each element to be functioning properly. They all work together to maximize each other. Obviously, to the degree that we add to goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, and brotherly kindness; we have a higher quality of love. Think of love and how it would be diminished if one of the other elements were missing. For instance, lack of knowledge would end up as an attempt to love with a love that is not according to God’s way of love. Love would not last very long without perseverance, etc. Therefore, let’s look at each quality individually.
Goodness (arete): it means courage and valor. The idea of an excellent or praiseworthy courage. We are to nourish or add courage to our faith. Knowledge (gnosis): knowledge. Self-control (egkrateia): temperance or moderation. We cannot serve multiple masters. Perseverance (hupomone): patience, continuance, joyful enduring, waiting. Godliness (eusebeia): piety, holiness. Brotherly kindness (Philadelphia): brotherly love. Love (agape): benevolence.
It would seem that forgetfulness is one of our more formidable nemeses in regard to adding these qualities to our faith. But as you can imagine, it would be easy enough to fill our daily lives with the practice of these qualities. Certainly, life its self offers plenty of opportunity to practice the one element of patience. Do you struggle with patience? Take note of how well you apply the other elements, they all contribute to our grand goal of love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments