# Is Piper teaching a Works based righteousness here?



## Pilgrim72 (Jan 31, 2010)

Well, it sounds like Piper anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven". 
What is he saying there? I thought he was pretty orthodox, yet this sounds just wrong to me. Our justification is based on Christ's righteousness alone.

I will note that at the end of the video Washer clears up any misconceptions about what is being taught, but I'm somewhat concerned about the earlier quote. What is meant by that, and should we be concerned by this? Because my practical daily lived out righteousness will always fall short, even as a Christian...

Your thoughts please.

Thanks.

[video=youtube;HkLLOH7qXPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg[/video]


PS: Oh, and if this was brought up in another thread somewhere, please post the link for me. Thanks!


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 31, 2010)

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Heb. 12.

I have not listened to the Piper video above, but there is by no means anything unorthodox in the quoted portion. Works are not meritorious for salvation, nor do they contribute to our justification (either instrumentally, efficiently, etc.) nor to the righteousness whereby we stand before God; nevertheless, sanctification is a necessary fruit of the union which we have with Christ by faith. There is an evangelical righteousness: it is not perfect by any means, but it is pleasing unto God in and through Christ; the works are spiritual or gracious in origin, and not natural, and they flow forth from a man or woman who antecedently stands justified.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 31, 2010)

Paul on justification-
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

James on sanctification-
Jas 2:14-18 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Both a part of the work of Christ in His people.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jan 31, 2010)

Dr. Piper is probably pointing out the fact that justification and sanctification are never separated. In other words, there is not a justified person who is not sanctified. I know he would not affirm that our good works are the basis for our entrance into heaven, but they demonstrate that we have truly received Christ's righteousness by faith. 



> Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification... (Westminer Larger Catechism Answer #77)


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Jan 31, 2010)

Thank you for your replies. Each has helped put me at ease with that statement.

I see that the point that is being made throughout the video is aimed at nominal Christians, and they are trying to show them that they are still in need of Christ.


----------



## Idelette (Jan 31, 2010)

From the video, it seems to me that Piper was first setting forth the truth that no one will see God apart from holiness. It is a call to repentance, particularly to those within the christian church. The video is addressing an insincere easy-believism faith, he's not advocating a works-righteousness apart from Christ, but more the examination that Scripture calls us to:


" Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you (G)fail the test?"- 2 Corin


----------



## lynnie (Jan 31, 2010)

Piper has a powerful CD entitled "this man went down to his house justified" which is a response to the Federal Vision teaching.

Believe me, he is not into works righteousness.


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2010)

Pilgrim72 said:


> Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven".


 
There is nothing inappropriate with "practical daily lived out righteousness;" the problem is to be found in the dregs of fundamentalism being expressed in the phrase "gets to heaven."

On a pastoral level I found the video quite disturbing. There is no nurture in the faith, but mere denunication. That is not how the New Testament epistles address the need for practical godliness in the lives of Christians. They begin with what the believer is in Christ and encourage him to live out the grace he has received.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 1, 2010)

To answer the OP, it sounds like Piper was about to expound more on how *not* to pursue righteousness, setting up for the correct way to pursue righteousness. So, the video editor definitely bears the blame for any ambiguity.


----------



## Andres (Feb 1, 2010)

at 2:44 they spell pursue wrong. 

Edit: just watched that part again. they also spell righteousness incorrectly.


----------



## DouglasGregory418 (Feb 2, 2010)

It is good to remember that He is more friendly to Doug Wilson (DG National 2009) because he already had the view (from Future Grace) that Sanctification more than proved Justification, but had some basis in it also

I am much more wary and have less respect for Piper these days


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 2, 2010)

Before casting stones at the preachers in the video, and others like them, please remember that these 'remixes' are cut and paste jobs and often don't portray the actual speakers full intent.


----------



## nnatew24 (Feb 2, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing inappropriate with "practical daily lived out righteousness;" the problem is to be found in the dregs of fundamentalism being expressed in the phrase "gets to heaven."



I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?

I ask because I know a good bit of Reformed Christians who have come out of a 'fundamentalist' background, and at times I struggle in pinpointing their exact error. For example, a point often propounded is taken from 1 Cor 6:9-10:



> "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."



The argument from this text is that if one is 'habitually' committing one of these sins, they will be left out of the kingdom. Seems to me that JC Ryle, one of my favorites, says similar statements. But I'm not quite sure I agree with this exact terminology. I think I'm more comfortable wording things as you did, in that it is mere denunciation. Could you offer any help here? Thanks


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2010)

nnatew24 said:


> I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?
> 
> I ask because I know a good bit of Reformed Christians who have come out of a 'fundamentalist' background, and at times I struggle in pinpointing their exact error. For example, a point often propounded is taken from 1 Cor 6:9-10:
> 
> ...


 
By fundamentalism I mean the separatist ideal which tends to see institutions and things as evil in themselves. In alluding to the dregs of fundamentalism I was indicating that the phrase itself reflects an attitude that conveys the Christian message in terms of an individual trying to get his pass into heaven. A futurist eschatology combined with sentimental hymns of heavenly life are key contributors to this mindset. We should be aware that, while there is a future element to the kingdom of heaven, the reality is that the kingdom has been established on earth and Christians are to be living the heavenly life here and now, with the heavenly rest serving as the consummation of an earthly fight of faith. The Psalms provide an antidote to the sentimental hymns in that they locate the worshipper's desire for nearness to God in this life amidst the congregation of God's people, and place his spiritual warfare within the social interactions of ordinary human life.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> nnatew24 said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to agree with the problem you mention in this statement, but I wish you would expound on this a little more. What do you refer to when you use the term 'fundamentalism'? What sort of presuppositions fuel the fundamentalist view on sanctification?
> ...


 
Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2010)

KMK said:


> Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.


 
Pastor Klein, I hope you're not waiting with bated breath. 

I may have noted before that I think Revelation only makes sense when it is read from the perspective of the seven churches. I take it that earthly ruling is part and parcel of overcoming the kinds of earthly forces which the churches encountered. Therefore, although Rev. 5:10 contains a future verb (with a variant reading in the present), I interpret it to refer to that which follows from the redemption-work of the lamb rather than some temporal point which remains to be seen. Amidst false teachers, deadly persecutors, and the like, the saints yield all power, blessing, and glory to the lamb and are victorious as a present reality. At the same time, there is no doubt that a glorious future is promised to all those who overcome, and this will reach its culminating point in the consummation of all things when all forces of opposition have been destroyed.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Still looking forward to your commentary on Revelation, Rev Winzer, especially concerning Rev 5:10.
> ...


 
That sounds like a pretty optimistic amill position.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 3, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim72 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, there's a part right towards the beginning of this video where he says "There is a practical daily lived out righteousness without which nobody gets to heaven".
> ...


 
While I agree with you Rev. Winzer, do you give any credence to the idea that the modern church needs a wake up call to shake them out of their anesthetized (or anesthetised  ) religion? I agree this video is over the top, and as Lawrence says, someone took the harsh points of several Minsters sermons and made a sort of "shock" video out of it. However, these shocking statements are scriptural statements and although no Minister would use a video like this (here's hoping) it just might force someone to your church where they can hear the gospel preached and be saved, and there receive the true shepherding. I know that in my "cage stage" I would have eaten this up. It is probably made by someone who was just introduced to the doctrines of grace. 



Andres said:


> at 2:44 they spell pursue wrong.
> 
> Edit: just watched that part again. they also spell righteousness incorrectly.



They also spelled emphatically as _infantically _twice. I thought it was infanticide but it didn't match the context.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 5, 2010)

Absolutely there is a daily lived out righteousness that needs to be held inorder to see Heaven. That is just biblical fact. Remember you cannot have sanctification without first being justified and you can't have justification without sanctification following. The two go together in that order and cannot be separated. And I do contribute something to my sanctification. It is synergestic in a sense (to paraphrase RC Sproul jr). But our justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone. In other words: there is nosuch thing as an unsanctified christian.


----------



## p.mitch3 (Feb 5, 2010)

Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 5, 2010)

p.mitch3 said:


> Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.



Sure. Our Sanctification is of course done by the work of the Holy Spirit but this work is not done usually directly/immediate but rather it is progressive and the spirit works through means (à la ordinary means of grace) plus other things God has given us in providence. Sanctification is of course special but it is not special grace in the same sense as regeneration is. For example, a married man who is a non-christian may fight years against p0rnography because of his love for his children and his wife and do all the usual steps. A Christian can do the exact same thing and on the surface the same moral result may come about. And while we all know the Holy Spirit gives the credit (common grace and sanctification in the latter), we also know that both persons did do things that they do share in the merit in some sense. What is the difference between the two? In the first person it is God's working for the betterment of a family or whatever reason he has inmind (we don't know for sure). But in the second is to make that man more like Christ until the day of consumation when sin in his life is finally destroyed. The works that we do as apart of our sanctification are legitamely ours because of the Holy Spirit are only made possible by the free grace given in regeneration and justification and they flow out of from union with Christ. As we are united to Christ the more we will act like HIm.


----------



## Andres (Feb 5, 2010)

p.mitch3 said:


> Asking for some clarification, how can I contribute to my sanctification? I always thought that I was sanctified by the Spirit, not by anything that I could add.


 
Here is an excerpt from a brief section on sanctification by J.I. Packer. You can read the rest here. 



> Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God's work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic - it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God's method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ's enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we "stay put" (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly - and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1).


----------



## MW (Feb 5, 2010)

Augusta said:


> While I agree with you Rev. Winzer, do you give any credence to the idea that the modern church needs a wake up call to shake them out of their anesthetized (or anesthetised  ) religion?



There is a a place for fear, Philippians 2:12, Hebrews 4:1; but this must always be accompanied by an understanding of grace, Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 4:13-16. I would maintain that the insensibility is due to the fact that modern "church-goers" have never learned Christ, Ephesians 4:20, and therefore have no understanding of putting off the old man and putting on the new; they have never received Christ Jesus the Lord, Colossians 2:6, and are therefore unable to walk in Him. The answer to this problem is not denunciation but proclamation. They need to be taught what it means to be dead in trespasses and sins, that God's purpose is at the forefront of salvation, how Christ puts away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, what is effectual grace and true regeneration, and the true nature and import of perseverance. In other words, they need to be taught the doctrines of grace. And by the doctrines of grace I mean the pure Calvinism of the past, not this mixed form of Calvinism which tries to make the dead sinner feel good about God by teaching him a gospel love that is not particular and saving.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 6, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Absolutely there is a daily lived out righteousness that needs to be held inorder to see Heaven. That is just biblical fact. Remember you cannot have sanctification without first being justified and you can't have justification without sanctification following. The two go together in that order and cannot be separated. And I do contribute something to my sanctification. It is synergestic in a sense (to paraphrase RC Sproul jr). But our justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone. In other words: there is nosuch thing as an unsanctified christian.



But to say it in that way confuses the truth. A Christian's sanctification is dependant upon his justification. His justification isn't dependant upon his sanctification. To say that to see heaven we have to do some sort of extra work would be an altering of the Gospel. Our daily lived out righteous works are still imperfect. What about the Christian who sins? What about the Christian who continually struggles in his growth (which should be all of us to some degree or another).

Because of our justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ alone by faith alone we will see heaven. That should be the end of the discussion on "seeing heaven".

Now when discussing our sanctification, we can talk about the importance of living holily in God's sight. All true Christians will be sanctified. All Christians should live at all times to glory of God. But this "living" doesn't merit us salvation.

I understand that in this video they are concerned with those who are Christian in name only, and at the same time live like the devil. America is filled with people like this. But I think that that statement could've been either worded differently, or not cropped in such a way to make it look like he's saying something he didn't mean.


----------



## p.mitch3 (Feb 6, 2010)

Thank you for the clarification, but I have a hard time saying that sanctification is synergistic. The one passage that keeps coming to my mind is Galatians 3:2-3. 

If sanctification were synergistic then we would be adding works to salvation. To me sanctification is as much of God’s work as justification. Now don’t get me wrong, we will produce good fruit, but that is not the cause of our sanctification. 

Mitch


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2010)

> LBC 13:3 In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; *and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience *to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word has prescribed to them.



Both Justification and Sanctification are monergistic, yet in the latter there is a certain amount of 'participation' on the part of the saint.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 6, 2010)

I of course am 100% in agreement with you on justification and the nature of our sanctification but I completely disagree with you about how we talk how the two relates. We must not talk about justificacation as a mere fire insurance as it sounds like you are saying, rather (I thinik) a more biblical discussion in general of salvation encompases all of our salvation from our election to our justification to our sanctification to our glorification. Now we must not make the mistake of the NPP or the RCC, but when you read the puritans they have this so right. They would never see the christian life of one of being justified then being sanctified rather they made the propre distinction and taught that the christian life was that of pilgrimage. For we most often don't know when the holy spirit really regenerates us and unites us to Christ. That work of course will usually manifest itself given time in a verbal profession of some sort but as we all know ''regeneration precedes faith'' and from there The christian FIGHT to make it to heaven like a good pilgrim and at the same time God is faithful and preserves him or her through means. We must not make the mistake of the finnyists and other revivalists and treat salvation as a decision or fire insurance NOR must we err on the side of Kuyper and presuppose regeneration. The happy way between the two is the Reformed way.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> I of course am 100% in agreement with you on justification and the nature of our sanctification but I completely disagree with you about how we talk how the two relates. We must not talk about justificacation as a mere fire insurance as it sounds like you are saying, rather (I thinik) a more biblical discussion in general of salvation encompases all of our salvation from our election to our justification to our sanctification to our glorification. Now we must not make the mistake of the NPP or the RCC, but when you read the puritans they have this so right. They would never see the christian life of one of being justified then being sanctified rather they made the propre distinction and taught that the christian life was that of pilgrimage. For we most often don't know when the holy spirit really regenerates us and unites us to Christ. That work of course will usually manifest itself given time in a verbal profession of some sort but as we all know ''regeneration precedes faith'' and from there The christian FIGHT to make it to heaven like a good pilgrim and at the same time God is faithful and preserves him or her through means. We must not make the mistake of the finnyists and other revivalists and treat salvation as a decision or fire insurance NOR must we err on the side of Kuyper and presuppose regeneration. The happy way between the two is the Reformed way.


 
For clarity's sake, could you 'reply with quote' or address the specific post to which you reply?


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 6, 2010)

I was replying to you KMK


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> I was replying to you KMK


 
Do you agree with the confession? Do you agree with the fact that 'the saints grow in grace' and 'press after an heavenly life' and 'obey'?


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 6, 2010)

KMK said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > I was replying to you KMK
> ...


 
I prefer the language of Westminster Larger Catechism 73: «Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God not because of those other grace *which do always accompany it*, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.» Conclusion: at regeneration all the graces of justification, adaption, sanctification, etc... that we will ever need in the Christian life are giving to us at the same time (though not in the same logical order) and you cannot separate one from the other. In other words there is no justification without sanctification. Sanctification starts as soon as ur united to Christ.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2010)

I don't think we disagree. All I am saying is even though God causes me to love righteousness that does not mean I do not actually and truly love righteousness.

Ursinus:



> Man's conversion to God consists in a change of the corrupt mind and will into that which is good, produced by the Holy Ghost through preaching of the law and the gospel, which is followed by *a sincere desire* to produce the fruits of repentance, and a conformity of the life to all the commands of God. _Commentary on the Heidelber_g, pg. 469


----------



## pepper (Feb 8, 2010)

In Philippians 2:12 we are told "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;". Our responsibility is to live in accord with our salvation, allowing the implications of our relationship with Christ transform, Romans 12:1ff, our social relationships. James also tells us that faith that does not transform our lives is dead and useless. Even the devils believe but they are not saved, James 2:19-20. Their faith is not transforming.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 8, 2010)

> We should be aware that, while there is a future element to the kingdom of heaven, the reality is that the kingdom has been established on earth and Christians are to be living the heavenly life here and now, with the heavenly rest serving as the consummation of an earthly fight of faith. The Psalms provide an antidote to the sentimental hymns in that they locate the worshipper's desire for nearness to God in this life amidst the congregation of God's people.



I have been thinking of this with profit, but puzzling over seeming ramifications of it, for a couple days -- specifically, how the last sentence relates to the future element mentioned. Is the 'house of God' in the Psalms typical of NT worship, then? I've taken it to be typical of eternity, teaching me to fix my desire on eternally dwelling with God as opposed to fixing my hopes on dwelling with anything less, in transient houses here -- & how it relates to the nearness of Christ in private worship? Is that not as important or of sub-importance -- less of heaven here because it lacks a corporate aspect? I think I'm probably confused in over-thinking something I ought to be able to understand more simply, but would be grateful to understand a little better than I do.


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> I have been thinking of this with profit, but puzzling over seeming ramifications of it, for a couple days -- specifically, how the last sentence relates to the future element mentioned. Is the 'house of God' in the Psalms typical of NT worship, then? I've taken it to be typical of eternity, teaching me to fix my desire on eternally dwelling with God as opposed to fixing my hopes on dwelling with anything less, in transient houses here -- & how it relates to the nearness of Christ in private worship? Is that not as important or of sub-importance -- less of heaven here because it lacks a corporate aspect? I think I'm probably confused in over-thinking something I ought to be able to understand more simply, but would be grateful to understand a little better than I do.


 
There are two trajectories for the Old Testament "house of God" in the New Testament in keeping with the spheres of our Lord's redemptive work -- the earthly and the heavenly. There is (1.) Immanuel, God with us, who temporarily tabernacled with us, whose mediatorial work constitutes Him our temple and His name as the means of access to worship God. By extension those in union with Christ become known as the temple of God, and wherever there is a corporate gathering for worship and witness in His name there Christ has vouchsafed His gracious presence. (2.) The heavenly temple, the place which Jesus Christ entered as our high priest with His one only offering to sanctify the very presence of God for us. This is the house to which believers are travelling in their earthly pilgrimage and shall permanently inhabit when they put off the tabernacle of their earthly body. It is that which believers groan for, but only insofar as they contemplate the temporality of life, the necessity of its termination, and its inability to fully meet their hopes of communion with Christ. So far as service to God is concerned, believers echo the Psalmist's concern to continue in this world in order to worship and witness for God (Ps. 6:4, 5; 30:8, 9) -- a sentiment expressed by the apostle Paul in Philippians 1:20-26.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 8, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> There are two trajectories for the Old Testament "house of God" in the New Testament in keeping with the spheres of our Lord's redemptive work -- the earthly and the heavenly. There is (1.) Immanuel, God with us, who temporarily tabernacled with us, whose mediatorial work constitutes Him our temple and His name as the means of access to worship God. By extension those in union with Christ become known as the temple of God, and wherever there is a corporate gathering for worship and witness in His name there Christ has vouchsafed His gracious presence. (2.) The heavenly temple, the place which Jesus Christ entered as our high priest with His one only offering to sanctify the very presence of God for us. This is the house to which believers are travelling in their earthly pilgrimage and shall permanently inhabit when they put off the tabernacle of their earthly body. It is that which believers groan for, but only insofar as they contemplate the temporality of life, the necessity of its termination, and its inability to fully meet their hopes of communion with Christ. So far as service to God is concerned, believers echo the Psalmist's concern to continue in this world in order to worship and witness for God (Ps. 6:4, 5; 30:8, 9) -- a sentiment expressed by the apostle Paul in Philippians 1:20-26.


 
That's very wonderful to understand and think about -- thank you. Do believers also groan for heaven because of afflictions, and longing to be free from them -- is that a different or more negative longing than the ones you listed, and not one that we should countenance so much? (I know that a lot of the sentimental mindset, where heaven is a place we get to at last rather that a place we're 'going all along' to borrow from Emily Dickinson, has more of that element than perhaps positive longing for Christ's presence?)

I was reluctant to ask because I was sure it was a question I should know the answer to, but I'm glad I did.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> Do believers also groan for heaven because of afflictions, and longing to be free from them -- is that a different or more negative longing than the ones you listed, and not one that we should countenance so much?



Afflictions might be seen under all three aspects of the undesirability of earthly life. They are heavy reminders of life's temporality, they lead ultimately to the termination of earthly life, and they stand in the way of the believer fully enjoying God in both body and soul. OTOH, afflictions might be seen from the perspective of witness and worship. Therein the believer has a tremendous opportunity to suffer patiently and demonstrate to the world that the eternal weight of glory is far greater than the momentary troubles of life; as well as to find God's grace sufficient and His power perfected in personal weakness, and thus to know the fellowship of Christ's sufferings.



a mere housewife said:


> I was reluctant to ask because I was sure it was a question I should know the answer to, but I'm glad I did.



The wonder of divine things involves knowing things we never thought we knew as well as not knowing things we thought we knew. Every one of us are learners (disciples) in Christ's school in that respect.


----------

