Son of Hamas – A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices . The tag line of this book should probably have read  - A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices which all worked together for the good of  someone who loves God and is called according to his purpose.

Mosab Hassan Yousef, popularly known as the Son of Hamas, by virtue of being the eldest son of a founding member of Hamas- a Palestinian terrorist organization – is now, can you believe it, a son of God.  This book takes you right into the heart of Israel-Palestine politics. It gives you a first hand account of the ideologies and motives behind the actions that have split the earth beneath them. And Mosab does all this not from a wishy-washy secular perspective but from a Biblical perspective, which is why this book is a delightful reading for any  Christian.

I took about a week to close this book. I’ve never been so involved in a story. I was living, breathing and imagining bloodshed, betrayal and bereavement. My husband even asked me to wear a bhurka while reading, and sarcastically addressed me as “Sarmishta Begum“. Yes, I was living inside Palestine. I could feel the chill down Mosab’s spine in Maskobiyeh prison. I could smell the stench in his cell, feel the pain of needles piercing through people’s nails, pant with every fugitve running away – away from their enemies, away from their brothers! I laughed, wept and sighed with the prisoners.

After reading this book I was exhausted and speechless. I weep with this brother in Christ for the people out there who are imprisoned in dungeons of darkness which only the Messiah can throw open. Many things in this book moved me deeply.

Mosab, after being in the heart of the Hamas movement, beautifully sums it up in hindsight when he says,

“…Hamas was not an organization as most people understood organizations, with rules and a hierarchy. It was a ghost. An idea. You can’t destroy an idea; you can only stimulate it. Hamas was like a flatworm. Cut off its head, and it just grew another..” (p. 58).

When he came to understand Christ’s command of loving your enemy he was able to see it’s larger implication to his own situation. He writes,

“Then I read this: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:43-45).

That’s it! I was thunderstruck by these words. Never before had I heard anything like this, but I knew that this was the message I had been searching for all my life.

For years I had struggled to know who my enemy was, and I had looked for enemies outside of Islam and Palestine. But I suddenly realized that the Israelis were not my enemies. Neither was Hamas nor my uncle Ibrahim nor the kid who beat me with the butt of his M16 nor the apelike guard in the detention center. I saw that enemies were not defined by nationality, religion, or color. I understood that we all share the same common enemies: greed, pride, and all the bad ideas and the darkness of the devil that live inside us. That meant I could love anyone. The only real enemy was the enemy inside me.” (p. 122)

Towards the end, his analysis of the problem and the solution (as he sees it) for the Middle-East paralysis is excellent.

“As long as we continue to search for enemies anywhere but inside ourselves, there will always be a Middle East problem. Religion is not the solution. Religion without Jesus is just self-righteousness. Freedom from oppression will not resolve things either. Delivered from the oppression of Europe, Israel became the oppressor. Delivered from persecution, Muslims became persecutors. Abused spouses and children often go on to abuse spouses and children. It is a cliché, but it’s still true: hurt people, unless they are healed, hurt people… …Truth and forgiveness are the only solution for the Middle East. The challenge, especially between Israelis and Palestinians, is not to find the solution. The challenge is to be the first courageous enough to embrace it.”  (p. 250).

Lord, may it so happen and may your reign be established in the place of your birth. God bless you, Mosab.

PS

Some in the media have questioned the veracity of Mosab’s account and have alleged that he fabricated these things to make money. I would encourage readers to view the videos found here, here and here. Who would dare to be so politically incorrect and risk his life? Only someone who has been changed by the truth.

Buy the book from Flipkart.

Also I should mention that while doing this exercise I am greatly aware that I am toddler in theology and layman with far lesser experience and maturity than John Piper, who has served the Lord for well over 35 years. Also, since I do not want to sound acrimonious, which has come to characterize much of Reformed blogosphere, I am going to address John Piper as Bro. Piper in order to always remind myself that he is my brother in the Lord and not some third person whom I delight in critiquing.

My first complaint comes from chapter 2 where Bro. Piper makes the case that thinking and feeling are connected to second and third person of the Trinity respectively. Relating the concepts of thinking and feeling to the Son and the Holy Spirit is at best plausible, not convincing. Piper quotes Edwards who says that Son is the deity “generated by God’s understanding” (a controversial phrase in itself unless he is referring to Christ’s eternal Sonship) and “The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s infinite love to and delight in Himself”. Here is Edwards’ statement

This I suppose to be the blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the deity generated by God’s understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct persons.(Page 34)

Edwards thus calls the second person of the Trinity as the Divine Idea because He is the embodiment of God’s understanding and the third person as the Divine Love because he is the embodiment of the God’s love and delight in Himself. Edwards is at best philosophical and speculative here because Scripture, as far as I understand, does not seem to give support to this description of the Trinity. Although Jesus is called the Word in John, yet calling Jesus as the perfect embodiment of God’s understanding with little or no connection to God’s love would be a little skewed. For example Apostle John says in 1Jn 4:9  – “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him (Also 1 Jn 4:10.)” God’s love here cannot be strictly interpreted as his love towards creatures alone and not his intra-Trinitarian love. Similarly, the mind of God is connected to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27. God the Father is said to know the mind of the Spirit as he intercedes for the saints. Again, even though here the context is of human redemption, it does give us a peep into the intra-Trinitarian relationship.

However, I do not want to nitpick on Edwards’ statement here because Edwards starts his sentence by saying “This I suppose to be the blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures.”  Nevertheless this became a little disconcerting to me because of the enormous weight Piper gives to Edwards’ comment. Piper writes

God the Father has had an eternal image and idea of himself that is so full it is another Person standing forth—distinct as the Father’s idea yet one in divine essence. And God the Father and the Son have had an eternal joy in each other’s excellence that carries so fully what they are that another Person stands forth, the Holy Spirit—distinct as the Father and Son’s delight in each other, yet one in divine essence.(Page 34)

Again, this is very similar to what Edwards (and a little more confusing) with the only difference being Bro. Piper’s assertion that Holy Spirit is the embodiment of Father and Son’s delight and love in each other (in contrast to Edwards who just restricted the embodiment concept to the Father). Again, I do not know where Scripture gives clear insight into all this which Bro. Piper asserts here.

But Bro. Piper uses this concept of the Trinity and relates it to thinking and feeling. He says

The both-and plea of this book is not a mere personal preference of mine. It is rooted in the nature of God’s Trinitarian existence and in how he has created us to glorify him with mind and heart.

Although Bro. Piper here asserts that this intra-Trinitarian conception is crucial to his claim that Christians should both think and feel, he does not constantly use this paradigm to assert his case in the rest of the book. Nevertheless, I am convinced that Christians should give importance both to feeling and thinking. But I am not too persuaded that this particular Trinitarian concept needs to be its foundation. All three persons of the Trinity think; all three persons feel; and hence their creatures too must.

Another area where I had to disagree with Bro. Piper is in the area of conversion, more precisely what constitutes a genuine initial conversion experience. Piper describes how a person receives Christ

“Therefore, saving faith is a receiving of Christ for who he really is and what he really is, namely, more glorious, more wonderful, more satisfying, and, therefore, more valuable than anything in the universe. Saving faith says, “I receive you as my Savior, my Lord, my supreme Treasure; and I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord”. (Page 72)

The word “treasure” and “surpassing worth” is the key here. They are the core of Piper’s theology. Furthermore, Piper describes what “receiving Christ is not”

One way to describe this problem is to say that when these people “receive Christ,” they do not receive him as supremely valuable. They receive him simply as sin-forgiver (being guilt-free), and as rescuer-from-hell (because they love being pain-free), and as healer (because they love being disease-free), and as protector (because they love being safe), and as prosperity-giver (because they love being wealthy), and as creator (because they want a personal universe), and as Lord of history (because they want order and purpose). But they don’t receive him as supremely and personally valuable for who he is. They don’t receive him the way Paul did when he spoke of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” They don’t receive him as he really is—more glorious, more beautiful, more wonderful, more satisfying, than everything else in the universe. They don’t prize him or treasure him or cherish him or delight in him. Such a “receiving” of Christ is the kind of receiving an unregenerate, “natural” person can do. This is a “receiving” of Christ that requires no change in human nature.(Page 71)

So, receiving Christ as being “supremely valuable” and “as more glorious, more wonderful, more satisfying, and, therefore, more valuable than anything in the universe” is something so abstract that it does not include a sinner seeing him as a sin-forgiver, a rescuer from hell, protector and creator. If I were to capture the essence of Piper’s statement, a sinner does not receive Christ by understanding the person (creator, redeemer) and work (sin-forgiver, rescuer from hell) of Christ, but has to embrace this abstract glory which Brother Piper espouses. I really am not persuaded that the Bible teaches about such kind of conversion experience. Also, the passage which Bro. Piper quotes – Phil 3:8 – is written by Paul years after he got converted. We do not find him mentioning much of Christ’s glory when he narrates his conversion experience to the Jews and Agrippa. Moreover, I do not think that Paul had such an abstract conception of Christ’s glory that he divorced it totally from his person and work.

After I read this passage in Think, I started scratching my head.  I became quite disturbed. I recounted how I came to know Christ. Things that drew me to Christ were that he had forgiven my sins, that he had saved me from Hell, that he was a real person of history (unlike other Hindu gods). Also, my friends gave me assurance that he himself would help me and protect me from the opposition that I will face at home. Later I also came to fully understand that Jesus is the Creator-God as well (I did believe in the Trinity at the back of my mind, but things became much clearer, later). All this took some nearly 2 to 3 weeks. I did not think of Christ in terms of his glory. And it was only slowly that I came to a position which Paul describes in Phil 3:8 – “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ”.  Even now I think I fall short of the standard which Paul is describing here. Many a times as a sinner I do value other things more than Christ in my hypocrisy. But Phil 3:8 is like an ideal standard which I am striving to achieve and will achieve it one day (glorification).

I am not saying that Bro. Piper does not preach sin, repentance and forgiveness of God. He does and I have heard that myself. But I think his claim of beholding this abstract glory of Christ as essential to genuine conversion experience is without biblical warrant. Few other Reformed Theologians have also questioned this theology like Darryl Hart and Paul Helm.

In this book John Piper contends that thinking is something wholly indispensable for a Christian; but it is not an end in itself. It serves the larger purpose of loving God. And what is loving God? The essence of loving God is treasuring him above all things. All thinking is but a means to this end. This is the main thesis of the book.  The following sentence may capture the essence of the book

“loving God with the mind means that our thinking is wholly engaged to do all it can to awaken and express the heartfelt fullness of treasuring God above all things. Treasuring God is the essence of loving him, and the mind serves this love by comprehending (imperfectly and partially, but truly) the truth and beauty and worth of the Treasure” (Page 19)

The strength of this book lies in exposition of biblical passages to support its central claim. He explains all the major concepts like thinking, loving God, conversion, relativism, anti-intellectualism etc. by explaining key texts in the Bible. And his expositions are simple yet insightful. This makes this book greatly accessible to layperson like me. Piper attributes his penchant for this method to him being a Bible-expositor. And you would come to expect that from someone who has preached the Bible for over 30 years. Additionally, he also mentions other books, ones which deal with the same subject but are different in their methods,  which will help the reader build upon the foundation he is laying for them (See Page 16, 42).

Another strength of the book is Piper’s careful and thorough refutation of claims that Bible discourages use of the mind. He devotes several chapters for this. Piper first deals with relativism – the idea that all truth is relative and hence not universally applicable – which comes more from the outside world, and then with anti-intellectualism which comes more from within the church. Piper asserts that the antidote to barren intellectualism is not anti-intellectualism but humble intellectualism before God. His case is well argued and very convincing. It’s a must-read for Christians who have developed an aversion to learning doctrine and think(!) that its unimportant to Christian life and practice.

Piper also touches upon Christian Scholarship and the use of the mind in other disciplines like Arts, Science etc. and how everything must ultimately serve the great end of loving God. Again, this section was very helpful. All students would derive great inspiration.

Having said this, I was not without a few complaints after reading this book. There are a few finer points where I was not persuaded. Nevertheless, since they do not detract from the central message, I thought I will handle them in a separate post.

However, sadly, this event has been forgotten with the passage of time. Indian Christians, especially, have very little knowledge about it. Hardly any churches have this important day in their church calendar to commemorate it.  Many also think that since the Reformation got sparked off in Europe, it is something specific to that geographical region and is probably irrelevant to Indian Christians. However, as I pointed out, this event was so crucial to the universal visible church as a whole that it shapes our church life even to this day. All of us who identify ourselves as protestants need to know what we are protesting about. Hence it is good to remind ourselves of the real issues in the Reformation.

As the title of the Essay suggest, the Protestant Reformation revolved around 5 solas. Sola in latin means “only” or “alone.” Martin Luther and his followers waged a doctrinal battle with the Roman Catholic Church on 5 solas, viz. Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (For the Glory of God Alone). Let’s look at all these briefly to get an understanding of what Protestant Reformation was all about.

Sola Scriptura: The Catholic Church over a period of centuries had developed an elaborate system of doctrines and sacraments around the issue of salvation. One such sacrament was called the sacrament of penance. It was defined by the Church as the “second plank of justification (being put in right relationship with God) for those who had made a shipwreck of their souls”. The first plank of justification was baptism, duly administered by the Church to infants which was said to produce the “grace of justification.” This grace of justification could be lost when one commits mortal sins (some serious sins in contrast to venial sins which are not so serious). The sacrament of penance helped reverse this situation and helped “restore” the grace of justification. It consisted of three things — contrition, confession and works of satisfaction. The faithful, by contrition and confession (demanded by this sacrament) escaped the eternal consequences of losing their justification. But works of satisfaction was needed to cancel out the temporal punishments for his mortal sins. Temporal punishment was to suffer in Purgatory before moving to heaven. In order to help the faithful in cancelling out his temporal punishments the church issued what is known as indulgences. An indulgence was a remission (pardon) of temporal punishment attached with mortal sins. It could be bought by giving money to the church.

In 1517, a proclamation was made by the Roman Catholic Church for the sale of indulgences to the masses. The proceeds were to go towards the building of St. Peter’s Basilica This indulgence was special. It served to not only cancel out the punishment for one’s own sins but also  the souls of their loved ones in purgatory. The indulgence was crassly marketed by the papal authorities. Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses in opposition to this crass sale of God’s forgiveness. Although in the 95 theses he did not question the sacrament of penance itself, he soon began to question it along with a host of others doctrines connected with it. His 95 theses spread like wildfire across Europe with the advent of the printing press. In 3 years he was brought to a situation where he had to face the Church authorities in the Diet of Worms. It was here that Luther thundered with his famous words – “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.” This assertion was a culmination of what Luther had learnt since posting his 95 theses – that popes and councils can err and have erred and scripture alone is the rule of faith which should bind the conscience of a believer. This gave rise to the slogan of sola scriptura or scripture alone.

Sola Fide: But the issue of Sola Scriptura was only the first among many. Sola Scriptura was the Pandora’s box to a host of other issues on which Luther took a different stand with respect to the church, based on his understanding of Scripture. The issue quickly moved beyond indulgences, purgatory etc. to justification. Sola Scriptura was the initial issue because the initial debate revolved around authority – whether Council, Magesterium, Pope or the Scripture. The doctrine of justification soon became the main issue which was being debated when matters came to a head.

How can a sinful man stand before a holy God? How can he be saved? This was the question which was fiercely debated in the Reformation. Rome said that a sinner is justified when the grace of justification, which is infused in the person through the sacrament of baptism, produces enough infused righteousness that God is obliged to justify that person. Baptism thus becomes an instrumental cause of justification. For Rome, faith merely accompanies justification; nothing more. Also, according to Rome, the righteousness infused in a sinner becomes his inherent righteousness, even though it may be an effect of the grace working in him. Luther sharply decried these positions. He held that faith, and not baptism, is the instrumental cause of justification. A sinner is justified when God, by his sheer mercy, causes him to believe or have faith on his Son. When a sinner exercises this genuine saving faith in Christ, God declares him righteous for Christ’s sake. Hence man is justified by faith alone. Also, Luther asserted, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (not infused) to the sinner in justification. God clothes the sinner with Christ’s righteousness and looks at him as if he never committed any sin, like Jesus. Luther called this righteousness an alien righteousness.

For Luther the doctrine of justification was the article by which the church stands or falls. Thus came the Reformation doctrine of sola fide – Faith Alone – Justification is by faith alone.

Bibliography : Faith Alone, RC Sproul

Now having said all this, my definition begs the questions – What is “sound theology”? Well, I believe Calvinism and Reformed Theology is sound. Not everyone will agree with me. That’s fine. Nevertheless, this does highlight the fact that you should first get convinced of what sound theology is . If you make up your mind on that you will be in a much better position to choose good books. If you haven’t, you may choose books which shed light on the questions you are grappling with. See, already we are getting into a rational process of choosing good books! So, with that said, let me move on to my suggestions.

These suggestions that I am going to mention are those that I have learned from my teachers over a course of time. I do not claim originality on all of them.

Read Books of Select Authors

A Book is only as good as its author. If the author holds to wrong convictions, it will inevitably be seen in his work and you will not be built up or edified. So choosing good books is same as choosing good authors. How do you get to know who the good authors are? Well, you will need to do your research. You will need to ask a few trusted people whom you respect highly, gather a few author names, search for reviews of their books on the Internet, read those reviews, and get convinced. If an author is really good, you may want to read up all his works. Only by doing this you may get an insight to the way he thought – something which reading a single book may not accomplish.

For the sake of the upcoming sale, I will suggest a few of my favourite authors later in this article. Martin Luther and John Bunyan are on top of my list among many others.

Read Books Which Are Difficult

I picked up this tip from Mortimer Adler’s book – How to Read a Book. He suggests that if we want to gain greater understanding, we need to read books which are beyond our current level of thinking. Only when you move from a state of understanding less to one of understanding more would you have made progress. This is one of the reasons why you must not always read popular books and popular authors. They may have written well and there may be sound theology in their books. But that book may still be well within your grasp. Read books which are difficult. Read those which offer spiritual potatoes rather than vitamins. Books by Martin Luther, John Calvin and English Puritans immediately come to mind.

Read Books Which Have Stood The Test of Time

Time is a great leveler, they say. Many books which were popular in one era have vanished into thin air in another. But great books are those which have stood the test of time. I am talking about Christian Classics. Read books like Confessions by St. Augustine, Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. These books have stood the test of time because they contain what is faithful to Scripture, not something which our ears may itch to hear.

Read Books Which Help You Increase in Bible Understanding

In one way all my previous points indirectly point to this heading, but I am here talking about reference work which will help us dig deep into the Bible. The Bible is God’s book. If the writings of men can be dense then the writing of God can be denser. We need help. We cannot arrogate ourselves and say – “Its me and the Bible.” Such a thought, though encouraged by some churches, is doomed to failure. God has appointed teachers in the body of Christ so that we may increase in our understanding of God’s word through them. The Holy Spirit can reveal everything to everyone all by himself. But He chooses not do so.

So, invest in a good Study Bible. Invest in good commentaries – both single volume and individual-book commentaries. Invest in Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, Bible atlas. Books on Historical Theology, which help us see how those before us interpreted the Scripture, can also aid in understanding Scripture better. John Calvin’s Institutes comes immediately to mind.

So, these are a few ways which God has shown me. I hope they are beneficial to you as well.

Finally, let me give you a few of my recommendations and also a few resources where you will find further recommendations.

Some Favourite Current Authors

R C Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, JI Packer – current authors who write popular books.

Iain Murray, D A Carson, Thomas Schreiner, G K Beale – current authors who are more scholarly.

Some Favourite Past Authors

Augustine(other church fathers as well), Martin Luther, John Calvin, The English Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd Jones

Some Favourite Publishers

Banner of Truth (right on top; buy anything which they sell), P&R(Presbyterian and Reformed), Crossway, Christian Focus,  Grace to India.

Some Favourite Review Sites

SVC Book Review, Challies, TGC Reviews, WTS Reviews, Ligonier (check the link for commentary reccomendations), T4G Master Book Recommendation

I hope this post will help us make better investment in the upcoming sale. And above all, I pray that God will help us invest in good books which will help us dig deeper into Scripture, help us gain greater understanding of who He is and help us become more obedient to him.

However, many a times when I observed the way people buy books(me included; at least some years ago), I found a strange similarity between it and the way people buy vegetables in a grocery store! Just glance at all the books, take some of them, look at the front and the back, if you like it, put them into the basket (even the baskets in these sales look a lot like the ones in grocery store) and head to the billing counter. This is a hyperbole of course. People do take into account whether the books fall somewhere in their sphere of interest and then decide to buy it. However, many a times the reason to buy a particular book stops there. One more reason may be that its a book which is being sold in OM Book Sale; alas! it has to be good since it is found a Christian book fair, right?

Well, OM stands to gain a lot from this kind of naivete found among us Christians. The more ignorant we are the more money they make through us. If you take into account that Campus Crusade charges nearly 25-30 K per day for that hall, you can imagine their investment and the magnitude of the revenues they expect to earn from this week-long extravaganza.

Harsh though I may sound, I am of the opinion that OM does not do much to “advance the Christian faith” as stated in their mission statement. People may buy books from their store and grow in their Christian faith, but the credit for that should go to the author of that particular book and the buyer, who has been diligent in digging out the gold from the heap of hay and straw, not to OM. They are not really bothered about the kind of books you buy as much they are about whether you buy them or not. Theology plays no part in their selling policy. That is why you will find Good Morning Holy Spirit (which argues for faith healing) by Benny Hinn and the Healing Epidemic by Peter Masters (which counters such practices) next to each other. You will find Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren and also Fool’s Gold by John MacArthur (Warren’s critique and especially in this book) 2 shelfs away from each other. TD Jakes (who does not believe in the historic doctrine of Trinity) will find prime place in this our bookstore. John Hagee, who claims that Jesus never claimed himself to be the Messiah, will have his books publicized as the book of the month.

So, as Christians there is great need to exercise discernment even in a Christian book fair. An unsuspecting Christian who exercises no discernment while buying books will not only waste his money but also his precious future time when he does read those books. Life is too short to be spent on reading books which give us no spiritual meat and only feed us with Cerelac.

So, are there some ways to identify and buy good books? Yes there are, and they are a whole lot different from buying vegetables. I’ll suggest a few of them in my next post.

I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment (Phm 1:10; NASB).

It produced a strange warmth in my heart. The reason for this is the the intimate language Paul employs while pleading Onesimus’ case with Philemon. This verse seems to echo John 3:16 since KJV and NASB both employ the word “begotten” (KJV also uses “son”). Paul’s care for his disciples was like that of a father for his son.

This does not seem to be an isolated verse where Paul uses such intimate language. As I looked through other letters of his’, such language abounds. Paul called Timothy his “beloved child in faith”(2 Tim1:2). Titus was his “true child in the common faith” (Tit 1:4). This language was not confined to individuals, he applied them even to churches. When the Corinthian church was being torn apart by sectarianism, he informed them that though they may have many guides yet they have only one father in the Gospel – he was their father in the Gospel (1 Cor 4:15). When Galatians were being led astray by the circumcision party, Paul chided them and corrected them. He later added that he “was in pains of childbirth till Christ was formed in them.” He intensely desired to be with them in order to protect them from this damning heresy(Gal 4:19-20).

Finally, in 2 Corinthians 11 Paul reveals his hardships to the Corinthians in order to defend his apostleship. He says a lot of things – five times he received forty lashes minus one from the Jews; three times he was beaten with rods; once he was stoned; three times he was shipwrecked; he was in dangers from robbers; dangers from Jews; from Gentiles; and many other things. Finally he mentions that in addition to all these “external things” he had to bear the pressure of his concern for all the churches.  Placing this fact in the last of his list of hardships is indicative of what burdened him most — not the “external” things but the “internal” thing, which is his concern for all the churches. That was a far greater hardship than the external ones. Such was the intensity of Paul’s pastoral concern.

Paul is almost always remembered as a missionary. But when I meditated on these verses – he is also a role-model pastor. He was very much like the Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd, in caring for his sheep. Paul’s pastoral ministry is an example that every Pastor must follow.

Sadly, as a layman in India, I must confess that most Pastors don’t even come anywhere remotely close to Paul’s example. But I think this is not something applicable only to Pastors. Every Christian is a pastor to at least a few, at least to his family, if not more. God expects same kind of pastoral care and concern towards that little flock as well. Lord, grant me such a pastoral attitude so that your sheep may be tended and fed well (John 21: 15- 17).

One of the proof-text of the free-will theory (or Arminianism) is Romans 8:29. This is how it reads: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (ESV). The passage is interpreted this way: God looked into the future; saw who is going to receive his salvation by faith and who is not; predestined unto glory those who he knew (or foreknew) will receive his salvation by faith and left others to their doom for their lack of it. Therefore in the final analysis, the crucial element which decides one’s personal destiny is one’s own ability to exercise faith. This, God, foresaw and made it a basis for election.

Let’s grant this thesis for a moment. If the ability to exercise of one’s own faith in the Gospel is the ultimate basis for predestination, then that faith must have been remarkable indeed. I say this because this faith must have distinguished itself from the faith of those mentioned in the parable of the sower – even  they “heard the word and immediately received it with joy.” (Mat 13:20). And remember, faith comes from hearing (Rom 10:17). So they exercised some sort of faith. But yet they ultimately turned out to be reprobates because their faith was not genuine. Even Simon the Sorcerer (who later turned out to be reprobate, which can be inferred both from the Biblical account and Church History) is said to have initially believed (Acts 8:13). Therefore, if this thesis is true, the faith of those who were predestined must have had a greater quality and thus merited predestination from God. This is sure grounds for boasting. Is it not?  However, Romans 8:29 does not give any such impression. And Bible says we have nothing to boast (Rom 4:2; 1 C0 1:29; Eph 2:9) regarding our salvation.

Also, if this thesis is true, then this “remarkable faith” itself must become also the basis of preservation of salvation. What good is my faith if, once I exercise it, I still need more grace to maintain it? Isn’t it not the same as that of Simon the Sorcerer and the ones who receive the word with great joy in the beginning in the Parable of Sowers (Mat 13:21)? Again it must be granted, if this thesis is true, and if it needs to be consistent, God must have not only looked at whether one exercises faith or not, but also whether the faith he exercises is of such a genuine quality that it propels him to remain faithful throughout his earthly life. However, Biblical evidence stands against this as well. All of us need grace to live our lives faithfully before God (Php 1:6; Jude 1:24; 2Ti 1:12 ; 1Co 15:10) which proves that our faith had no meritorious quality whatsoever before God. Faith is merely a instrument through which we are justified (Eph 2:8-10; by grace through faith)

The foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 is not about God ascertaining whether one will exercise faith or not but rather about God simply knowing that person. It has its roots in the Old Testament “where the word ‘know’ emphasizes God’s special choice of, or covenantal affection for, his people” (Gen. 18:19; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; quotes from ESV Study Bible Notes). He simply knew his people just as Jesus said : “I know my sheep and my sheep know me.”

Our Predestination is grounded in God’s sovereign choice and not on our faith. Paul’s words in Rom 9 sums it up well ^: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills (Rom 9:15-18, ESV). Amen.

The New Testament on the other hand, comparatively, does not mention sin in such specific terms.In the absence of such specific laws in the New Testament and also with its witness that Christ has paid the penalty for sin on our behalf and its stress on faith as a medium for receiving God’s salvation (and not works), we are tempted to have a low view on the seriousness of sin and develop a notion that any of our actions is acceptable towards God. “The Bible never commands me not to smoke”, “watching this movie is not sin ” – these are often heard quotes.

But far from placing lesser importance on sin, the New Testament defines sin in a quintessential way — “All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:13). This verse implies that sin is anything which makes us fall short of the glory of God.  The implications of this verse is profound and immense. And when we consider this verse along with what Paul says in 1 Co 10:31 - “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” – the meaning can be clearly deduced. We need to watch our life and see whether our everyday actions bring glory to God. The scope of this commandment is almost everything that we do.

Therefore, even in the absence of specific laws in the New Covenant, we still have our “glory-to-God ” aware conscience to guide us in deciding whether a particular action of ours is sinful or not. Therefore, our everyday activities, which do not find mention in the Bible, but which force us to take a moral decision, can be judged quite easily by this standard. May I go for this or that movie? – Ask whether this would bring glory to God?May I listen to rock music – Ask whether this would bring glory to God?. May I “bunk” classes? May I go late to the office (why? what about Bible Studies?). Put the same question before them all.

What must be kept in mind, however, is that despite our best efforts we do daily fall short of the glory of God. No day passes in our life when we have not fallen short and have not received grace. We can never stop sinning (1 John 1:10). However, that is never an excuse to make a “practice of sinning” (1 John 3:8). It is never an excuse to not examine ourselves (1 Co 11:28). Let us therefore lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.(Heb12:1). To God be the glory.