2 Corinthians 4:7-11 “But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.”

This portrait of the Christian life is so foreign to our Americanized Western Christianity.

Here, the picture painted is of a people constantly or at least repeatedly brought to the end of themselves by circumstances of every kind, SO THAT, His supernatural sustaining power might be demonstrated through us – IN us.

It is interesting to note that people often quote: “. On no soul doth [God] Place a burden greater than it can bear.” – or something to that effect. The problem is, that quote doesn’t come from the Bible, but rather is from Surah 2:286 from the Qur’an.

The truth is Believer, while we are alive in these bodies, we are always being given over to circumstances which would seem to destroy us. Things far too great for us to bear apart from God’s grace. Why? Because by means of it – he brings others to life. It is beyond our comprehension. And for at least this reason – that others may see us sustained beyond our capacities, in making him manifest. We become burning bushes so to speak. On fire, but not consumed. Supernaturally upheld.

Dear Saint, you who have been tested and tried and who have thought that it must mean God has abandoned you or is hanging you out to dry for some unknown reason – listen to this passage. As we experience these things not only in terms of deliberate persecution, but also in the simple trials of life, the breakdown of our bodies, sinful human interaction, our battles with indwelling sin, natural disasters and the like. Each of these individually and collectively trouble us but do not crush us; perplex us but do not drive us to despair; knock us down, but do not destroy us. Because of Christ Jesus.

Ease, success, plenty and no adversity are not the presupposed norms of the Christian life. It is just the opposite. And those who would tell you different, are not reliable. This reality remains unknown to them.

You in Christ who are standing today in the midst of severe trial, and know full well that you are not doing it by means of even the smallest ability of your own – He is manifesting Himself to the rest of us in your mortal flesh.

The “treasure” is v-6, the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ – doesn’t shine through except by virtue of our cracks. Through the stress fractures that trials bring. Through cracks, that irrespective of their severity, allow us to bear the glory of the risen Christ without loss.

Crackpots by the score will tell us that the “abundant life” is one of supernatural ease, prosperity and uninterrupted bliss. But we know the supernatural wonder of being cracked pots, in whom dwell the glory of Christ – beaming out while we are inexplicably sustained.

The world doesn’t need to see self-confident heroes. It needs the Christ of self-doubting sinners, trusting the Savior alone and putting no stock in circumstances pleasant or adverse. To see us endure the unimaginable by the invisible glory that holds us together; the indwelling presence of the Living Lord.

Don’t be afraid of being weak. Be afraid when you begin to think you can stand no matter what, rather than relying upon him for every breath. Our Lord, never lets his own go – no matter what.

The subject of Natural Law (NL herein) is one that has long interested me. Partly because certain passages like Romans 1 clearly indicate that all humanity is guilty of rejecting what can be known about God through the Creation; that God will one day “render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6); and more difficult concepts such as found in Romans 2:14-16 – For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them ¹⁶ on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. ^[1]

As I am sure you already know, the debate on NL has historically raged long and is profoundly complex. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a background anywhere near sufficient to be of real use. That said, some historical facts may be of use.

In terms of the current debate, most theologians and historians tend to trace the debate’s origin to questions – mainly between Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars – over the propositions of Thomas Aquinas regarding NL. In this regard, Aquinas is most heavily criticized for his dependence upon Aristotelian logic and frameworks. To what degree that is true I must leave to others.

While we cannot wade too deeply into those waters here, I would extend a caution regarding it. It is oft the case in my experience, that citing anyone outside of our approved circles on any question, immediately makes us suspect from some quarters, resulting in wholesale repudiation due to a guilt-by-association dynamic. By this rule, Paul’s citing of pagan philosophers in Titus 1:12 and Acts 17 should disqualify not only his point, but all he wrote – never mind that he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Since Roman Catholic Bibles contain all of the books in Protestant ones, should we repudiate our canon due to those shared resources? This is utter nonsense. And yet some reject any discussion of Natural Theology or Natural Law if there exist any points of commonality between simple facts or observations drawn with pagans or Romanists. Surprisingly, Christians can agree with Pagans and even Romanists that 2+2=4 without theological compromise (Although I am not certain Rushdoony or Bahnsen would agree, wink, wink).      

That all humankind will be judged by God irrespective of their exposure to the Law of Moses is abundantly evident in the Scripture. It is beyond dispute. But the question remains; on what basis will this judgment take place? How is it for instance, that God can tell Abraham that his offspring will inherit Israel’s territories in due time – but that is still a long way off because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete”? (Gen. 15:16). On what basis were these Amorites to be judged? Is it only for the sin of rejecting God as God? Then why cite “sins” such as sexual relations with close relatives, adultery, bestiality and such as reasons why God is driving out the pagan nations before the Israelites as “uncleanness” – when they have no such laws? (See: Lev. 18 esp.)

And what exactly are we to make of the human conscience?

How are we to understand these, their mechanisms and their relationships?

All of these and more fall under the umbrella of investigations into two interrelated inquiries: Natural Theology, and Natural Law.

And I will unblushingly confess that in all my reading and study, I find myself quite in over my head. But since that never stopped me from pontificating on any subject in the past, I’ll go ahead and give it a rousing try here as well.

That said, I have little doubt that this paper will raise infinitely more questions than it will answer. But it will have served its purpose, and I, in giving it, if a deeper and more fruitful dialog is opened by virtue of it.

Once again, the debate regarding NL has raged long. Adding to the difficulty of our inquiry is the fact that theories of NL have been developed most by Roman Catholic thinkers and writers, and in some cases vehemently opposed by Protestant theologians like Cornelius Van Til, Stanley Grenz, Robert Morey and a host of others, and like philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Representative of the theologians, Morey writes: “Natural Theology, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Law are utter nonsense, and are the products of rebellion against God.” ^[2]

But then you have no one less than John Calvin seemingly arguing differently in his comments on Romans 2:14-16: “there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions, προληψεις, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honouring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves.”^[3] Notice how Calvin classifies this as part of “everything human.” Interesting language indeed.

Thus writes Grabill: “Put simply, John Calvin not only adopts a modified doctrine of natural law from medieval antecedents but also utilizes the doctrine of the twofold knowledge of God (duplex cognitio Dei) to ground natural law (lex naturalis) in the natural knowledge of God the Creator.”^[4]

No matter what, the debate ain’t pretty.

I think it is fair to say that most (if not all) of those opposing both Natural Theology and NL, do so out of a concern to guard the Gospel. The fear is perhaps that man somehow can both reason and obey these revelations sufficiently so as to be salvific. Orthodox divines would reject that concept out of hand. Anything which makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ unnecessary is contrary to the whole of Scripture. Albeit, there seems to be among some, an understanding of passages like Rom. 10:5 “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” – as though “live by them” implies one might have life (spiritual life, salvation) by obeying the Law. This of course is contrary to Rom. 3:20 – that no one can be justified by the works of the Law, and perhaps more pointedly: Luke 17:10 “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ” No one can gain life by only doing what they are supposed to do, especially in light of previous sins.

But I digress.

At the bottom of any debate such as the one before us, we must begin with definitions. Until we are talking about the same things the same way, we cannot make any real headway in sorting it all out.  

Haines and Fulford offer a helpful starting place when they write: “the very fact of divine creation seems to point towards what has been traditionally called natural law: the notion that there is, because of the divine intellect, a natural order within the created world by which each and every created being’s goodness can be objectively judged, both on the level of being (ontological goodness), and, for human-beings specifically, on the level of human action (moral goodness). Ontological goodness is the foundation of moral goodness.”^[5]

David VanDrunen helpfully adds: “Though different writers suggest various definitions of natural law, the term generally refers to the moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole of the human race.”^[6]

VanDrunen then offers as a working definition: “By natural law, then, we mean that order or rule of human conduct which is (1) based upon human nature as created by God, (2) knowable by all men, through human intuition and reasoning alone (beginning from his observations of creation, in general, and human nature, in particular), independent of any particular divine revelation provided through a divine spokesperson; and, thus (3) normative for all human beings.^[7]

It seems to me that VanDrunen’s argument that focuses on the ontological reality of man being created in the image of God is the real key to understanding the issue of NL. Contra Barth, who argued that the image of God was essentially annihilated in The Fall, (“In this sense, as a possibility that is proper to man qua creature, the image of God is not just, as it is said, destroyed apart from a few relics; it is totally annihilated.”^[8]) passages like Genesis 9:6 (ESV) “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image”, and James 3:9 “With [the tongue] it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God” – both of these passages post-Fall, argue that the image of God dynamic is still very much in play.

If I may be a bit overly reductive too quickly, the issue needs to be re-framed from trying to find a mystery analog to the Mosaic Law – say in the conscience – to one of true ontology. I take this from a view of eschatology. God’s goal for the redeemed is to be as naturally holy as he is. To fully bear the image of Christ in indefectibility. God needs no code outside of himself. He intends to make us as much like himself as it is possible to be for a created, finite and dependent creature.

We reason back from where it is revealed we will be, to understand where we are and where we fell from. All of which is located in our nature. In this sense, we are not so much looking for natural law as we are the law of nature. That man live in accordance with how he was made. All of God’s instincts are holy. And we only know them as holy because they are his – not due to some external standard. As the end of sanctification is glorification – such glorification is simply and plainly to be like Christ: Romans 8:29–30 (ESV) “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. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

As John Owen notes: “Sanctification is an immediate work of the Spirit of God on the souls of believers, purifying and cleansing of their natures from the pollution and uncleanness of sin, renewing in them the image of God, and thereby enabling them, from a spiritual and habitual principle of grace, to yield obedience unto God, according unto the tenor and terms of the new covenant, by virtue of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Or more briefly:—It is the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ.

Hence it follows that our holiness, which is the fruit and effect of this work, the work as terminated in us, as it compriseth the renewed principle or image of God wrought in us, so it consists in a holy obedience unto God by Jesus Christ, according to the terms of the covenant of grace, from the principle of a renewed nature. Our apostle expresseth the whole more briefly yet,—namely, He that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17; for herein he expresseth both the renovation of our natures, the endowment of them with a new spiritual principle of life and operation, with actings towards God suitable thereunto.”^[9]

What was mankind’s great sin? That we fell short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) And what is God’s glory? It is nothing less and nothing else than the revelation of himself. “Glory means God’s presence shown forth so that his nature and power are made evident.” ^[10] “Glory means deity in manifestation.” ^[11] We will revisit this concept more at the end of this paper.

We might argue then that NL is what remains of our original nature as created in Adam before the Fall, and what we will be fully restored to in the resurrection.

Leighton (Exposition of the Ten Commandments) thus states the relation of the written law to the unwritten: “At first the commandments were written in the heart of man by God’s own hand, but as the first tables of stone fell and were broken, so was it with man’s heart; by his fall his heart was broken and scattered among earthly perishing things that was before whole and entire to his maker; and so the characters of that law written in it were so shivered and scattered that they could not be perfectly and distinctly read in it; therefore it pleased God to renew that law after this manner by a most solemn delivery with audible voice and then by writing it on tables of stone. And this is not all, but this same law he does write anew in the hearts of his children.”^[12]

What was “written in the heart of man” at the beginning, was nothing other than his native holiness or harmony with and manifestation of – God’s own nature. It was God’s image. Not a “code.” No code could be sufficient – for it would transcend enumeration in application.

The question then is – what are the marks of these remains? Is there an identifiably specific set of these remains to be looked for? And, are they exactly the same in all? Or do these admit to varying degrees in individuals?

Wow! Those are some great questions. Wish I knew.

But do not fear, I do have some suggestions for a way forward. And I base this on something VanDrunen mentions, but fails to develop more fully.

How can we arrive at a catalogue of what remains within fallen man having been made in the image of God – that leaves him morally responsible and liable to judgment for?

The approach I am suggesting is a sort of reverse engineering of Scripture. In other words, if we look carefully for those things for which God says he judges those without the Mosaic Law – then we gain insight into what humankind instinctively, naturally (due to the nature we were created with) knows in moral terms.

Let’s begin with an example from Genesis 12. Abram and Sarai sojourn in Egypt due to a famine. While there, Abe is afraid the locals will hit on his wife, and convinces her to say she’s his sister to avoid violence. Pharoah gets wind of her beauty and brings her home. The truth comes out and what is interesting is that Pharoah is offended that he might have committed adultery had not God “afflicted” his house. In this thoroughly pagan context, adultery is seen by the pagans as wrong. We know it from how God afflicts them as responsible.

Not to get too graphic in all of this, but in examining Lev. 18-20, what is instructive is (in 18 especially) the nature of what are proper and improper sexual connections punctuated by 18:24: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.”

We know then that issues of sexual propriety are still a remaining element in fallen man. That such things are contrary to “nature” (Rom. 1:26-27). Contrary to what “nature”? Human nature as created in the image of God.

Hence the rampant sexual promiscuity in our day can only be owing to the suppression of the remaining shards of God’s image as reported in Rom. 1:18.

Leviticus will go on to address issues of illicit supernaturalism, superstition, idol worship, dishonesty in business and even the mistreatment of sojourning strangers as part and parcel of what the pagan nations do. And if they are judged for it – they know better. They are acting contrary to the remnants of the image in which they were created – suppressing the knowledge of God.  

Shedd, in tying this to the conscience writes: “This faculty has an authority for man that cannot be accounted for except  by its being the voice of God. If conscience were entirely isolated from the deity and were independent of him, it could not make the solemn and sometimes terrible impression it does. No man would be afraid of himself if the self were not connected with a higher being than self. Of the judgments of conscience, it may be said literally that God reveals his own holy judgment through them. “Whence comes the restraint of conscience?” asks Selden (Table Talk); “from a higher power; nothing else can bind. I cannot bind myself, for I may untie myself again; an equal cannot bind me, for we may untie one another. It must be a superior power, even God Almighty.”^[13]

And: “Sin gives a bias to the will against the truth so that even when there is an accurate perception there is an endeavor to get rid of it. Men know God to be holy, but do not like to retain this knowledge (Rom. 1:28). Sin weakens the power of intuition itself. Vice debilitates the spiritual and rational faculty by strengthening the sensuous nature. (d) It is a part of the punishment of sin that God withdraws for a time his common grace so that there is little or no intuitive perception of moral truth. The human mind is left to sin: God “gave up to uncleanness those who changed the truth of God into a lie” (1:24) and “gave them over to a reprobate mind” (1:28).^[14]

So as not to over-extend my portion here and instead leave time to discussion among ourselves – let me spend just a few moments in the book of Amos. God’s pronouncements against Damascus, Gaza and others, inform us as to what law by nature remains within fallen men, and what they will be judged for.

Amos 1:3-5 / Damascus: God’s first pronouncement against Syria, is due to its excessive brutality in times of war. God sees and notes such things even for nations which are not His own.

1:6-8 / Gaza: Gaza is judged for conquering entire peoples only to make trade of them. Human trafficking is an abomination to God.

1:9-10 / Tyre: Tyre is judged for having no loyalty. No consideration for those they have a common bond with.

1:11-12: Edom: Edom is judged for implacable rage. Perpetual, unsatisfied anger.

1:13-15 / Ammonites: Ammon is judged for waging war for the purpose of making themselves larger. Military expansionism.

2:1-3 / Moab: Moab is judged because even after the death of its enemies, it needed to go on and burn the bones of their enemies to lime. They will not let go of their anger even after everything is over.

And isn’t it informative to see the catalogue of sins which issue from refusing to “acknowledge God” in Romans 1? These include: Covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slanderer, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulfulness, invention of evil, disobedience to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness and ruthlessness  – and all under the rubric of knowing God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

How do they know both the sinfulness and accountability of these things? Instinctively – as contrary to the nature – the image we were all originally created in.

Not because there is a massive, specified list somewhere in the ether – but because we know these are not fitting for image-bearers. Even if we cannot define what that means. In fact, this idea of guiding conduct by considering what is fitting is a dynamic appealed to in Scripture for believers as well: Ephesians 5:3–4 “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.” Notice the language of what is “proper” or what is “out of place” as a guideline. It is not as much an issue of “do this, don’t do that” as – “what befits who I am in Christ?” Or, even for the unbeliever – what is fitting for one created in the image of God?

Natural Law comes down to the Law of our Nature as God’s image-bearers. Whatever is or is not “fitting” that created station. Such is what in regeneration, sanctification and eventual glorification is restored in the redeemed – conformed to the image of the Son. Living out holiness as naturally as God Himself.

Now from a survey of the Biblical texts, can we arrive at some broad categories at least to help inform us here? I think we can. And I would submit the following as those which stood out to me – though by no means meant to be exhaustive.

1 – An impulse in all to consider Divinity. Absent special revelation to describe and define the God of the Bible, nevertheless, there is a universal impulse to consider a divine being, even if it is only in the process of concluding there is none. The impulse remains. The fact that pagans are punished for seeking other gods, and/or rejecting any notion of God altogether is proof the impulse is present. God’s Word says this makes everyone culpable for what he or she does with that impulse. The implication of Acts 17:26-27 is, that God has, even providentially seen to it each individual is assigned their time and place in history so that they would seek after him. But, as Rom. 1:18 reminds us, we suppress such truth.  

2 – Accountability. There is within each human being an intuitive realization that we are accountable for our actions – if only to oneself. This is easily proved as even the most reprobate among humankind rebel at their being sinned against, and want some form of justice or retribution (Rom. 2:1). The phrase used in Gen. 20:11 states it well. Abraham’s concern was “There is no fear of God at all in this place.” i.e. his concern was these pagans he was among would have no sense of accountability for their actions. The fool says Solomon says “in his heart” – there is no God. Or, in God’s pronouncement against Babylon in Isa. 47 – “You felt secure in your wickedness; you said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray, and you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me.”

But God WILL hold all accountable. Instinctively, we all know it in some measure, no matter how we repress it.

3 – There is a universal impulse toward biological life, both procreative & protective. We see Scripturally how God punishes for murder and violence. Violence is cited as the chief cause for God sending the Noahic flood. Humans want to live. Redeemed and unredeemed both seek to live, and to instinctively protect life. But God cites murder and violence toward life – including child sacrifice, as punishable.

4 – There is a universal impulse toward order – societal & personal. So we see how God uniformly punished nations for war and chaos.

5 – There is a universal impulse toward seeing justice carried out, even if the systems of justice themselves may be distorted. God pronounces judgment for the perversion of justice throughout the Bible.

6 – There is a universal impulse toward loyalty & fidelity. At the very least, in terms of how others are either loyal or not toward us, regardless of how we may be toward them. This is why adultery for instance receives universal condemnation.  

7 – There is a universal impulse toward seeking comfort & pleasure. Hence we see God’s condemnation of excess  – gluttony, etc. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. ⁵⁰ They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.”^[15]

8 – There is a universal impulse toward seeking purpose and accomplishment in life. Yet seeking such apart from God’s plans and purposes, such impulse devolves to seeking these for self only, and become self-idolatry. Those who built Babel’s tower wanted to make a name for themselves above honoring God. And they experienced his judgment.

9 – There is a universal impulse toward discovery and wonder. The pursuit of beauty is found in every culture though expressed in innumerable varieties. Yet seeking these without consideration for the God who gives us beauty and awe, finds punishment at God’s hand for looking only to this life and world for them. 1 John 2:15-17.

10 – There is a universal impulse to regard personal property. We all want things which are uniquely and exclusively “ours.” Thus God condemns theft. “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you.”^[16] (See also Rev. 9:21)

11 – There is a universal impulse to reject powerlessness, and to seek power over our circumstances, and/or others. So it is we see God’s condemnation of despotism. Once again, Amos 1 and God’s condemnation of the Ammonite military expansionism comes into play. We might add passages like  ^“And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they will fight, each against another and each against his neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom; and the spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their counsel; and they will inquire of the idols and the sorcerers, and the mediums and the necromancers.” ^[17] It is by means of the mystic arts that people seek power over their circumstances.

All of the above, and more, are universally recognized as part and parcel of humanity. Each is good in its proper context, and each can be exercised and thus punished when outside of God’s more perfect nature.

But I think we may safely reduce this even further, and not descend into reductio ad absurdum.

Perhaps the sum of NL can be found here: “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart and mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” This was our original nature as created in God’s image – this is what has been corrupted – This is what is being re-created and perfected within the redeemed. By this standard, all will be judged. Every sin flows from defects in these two and fully interconnected – loves. We know instinctively, this is how it should be.

And may I unpack that just a bit more?

Here is a question – how does one love God properly? Not how do we feel toward him more lovingly – though that is good – but how do we actively love him? What is the most loving thing we can do for or toward him? Is it not this?: To see to it he is represented and perceived most fully and accurately. Isn’t that what was in his mind when he made us in his image? That we might make him known most fully? To reflect him without blemish?

Likewise, how can we best love our neighbors as ourselves? Is it not to expose them to him who is the very foundation and font of all true blessing?

If these are true, then bearing his character is the very essence of the law of his nature in us is what governs us. Then all sin is ultimately rooted in obscuring his glory. Thus each and all that we have seen above finds its condemnation in that his character is obscured in each case. Wherever we violate his character, we obscure him. This is what is incumbent upon all humanity as a law of nature. This is what we fail at in serving ourselves first. And the shadows and shards of that nature are borne out instinctively to greater and lesser degrees, and with varying emphases in each individual. This I would submit is true NL, however faint, its gravitational pull is still felt. In this, all have sinned, by falling short of the glory of God.     

I would suggest a series of propositions as one way to begin considering it all.

1 – Humankind was made in the image of God. That image carries certain ontological traits still remaining to varying degrees in each individual (contra Barth).

2 – Mankind, even in his perfect creation was not formed in a vacuum, but a. Mature (physically self-sustaining, communicating), b. In communion with God so as to be receiving revelation. Even created in the image of God, man still needed revelation to explain to him who he was and why.  

3 – Among the ontological traits or remains of our original creation in God’s image, are a capacity to differentiate between right and wrong; rationality and certain moral instincts.

4 – Proof that such moral instincts exist is found in how God holds even fallen humanity responsible for certain sins. (See: Lev. 18-20; Amos 1:1-2:3; Rom. 1:18; Rev. 9:20-21)

5 – The capacity to differentiate between right and wrong needs to be informed. This capacity is informed by two main means: Culture and Revelation.

6 – As per 1 Cor. 14 (see Paul’s discussion on tongues) edification requires intelligibility. In terms of either Natural Theology or Natural Law, merely seeing nature does not automatically lead one to posit God, understand him or ourselves, apart from some remaining instinct, which then needs to be informed by revelation. Our rationality alone always leads us to connect dots, but not necessarily the same dots in the same order.

In summary: I would suggest, that NL is nothing other than the law of Nature – the nature of God as crafted into humankind as made in his image, and what remains of it in its various shades of obscurity in impulses and instincts – since The Fall. Such “law” is non-salvific, but remains by grace for the preservation of society until the consummation of the ages.

Bibliography:

Packer, J. I. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.

Haines, David, and Andrew Fulford. Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense. The Davenant Trust, 2017.

Grabill, Stephen J. Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. Edited by John Witte Jr. Emory University Studies in Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

VanDrunen, David. A Biblical Case for Natural Law. Edited by Anthony B. Bradley. Studies in Christian Social Ethics and Economics, Number 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2006.

Morey, Robert A. The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?. Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press, 2009.

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003.

Calvin, John, and John Owen. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 2:14–16.

^[2] Robert A. Morey, The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? (Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press, 2009), 55.

^[3] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 96–97.

^[4] Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, ed. John Witte Jr., Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 70.

^[5] David Haines and Andrew Fulford, Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense (The Davenant Trust, 2017), ii.

^[6] David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, ed. Anthony B. Bradley, Studies in Christian Social Ethics and Economics, Number 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2006), 1.

^[7] David Haines, “The Philosophical Foundations of Natural Law Theory,” in Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense (The Davenant Trust, 2017), 5.

^[8] Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, ed. John Witte Jr., Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 33.

^[9] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), Vol. 3, 386.

^[10] Packer, J. I. 2001. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[11] Packer, J. I. 2001. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[12] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[13] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[14] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[15] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Eze 16:49–50.

^[16] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Co 6:9–11.

^[17] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Is 19:2–3.

It has long been my habit to read through Proverbs each month. With 31 chapters, it is easy just to match the day of the month with the chapter. And once again, on this the 1st of May, 2025, we hit on the portion that sets the tone for the rest of the book: Pr. 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

While we’ve looked at this portion before, let me just point out some key concepts once again.

‎What is it to fear the Lord? It is at least, but not limited to:

a. To fear, to tremble at the thought of His JUSTICE. To know and feel that in His holiness, sin MUST be judged, and it will be – in perfection. – Genesis 20:11. Fools make light of sin. But the idea of sin weighs heavily on the Wise. They look at the Cross and contemplate that even if our sin was but imputed to Christ (for he had none of his own), even the very Son of God would not escape the full fury of the Father. Believer, this is what he did for you.

‎‎b. To fear, to tremble at His FREEDOM. That His divine rights of Creator-ship are absolute, and constrained by nothing but His own nature and will. Genesis 22:12 Psalm 130:4 (ESV) “But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared.” God is not required to forgive our sin. It is something He does out of His goodness, but it is not required by His justice. It is wholly dependent upon His personal choice. If you are his today, it was because he made a free choice of you when he could have damned you to an eternal hell and been fully just. He was never constrained to save you. You owe all to his free choice. Nothing else.

c. And it seems to me that this is first in order – To fear, to tremble at His WORD. To believe Him. Especially in His warnings and His revelations regarding reality in its largest sense. He says nothing superfluously. He says what He means, He means what He says, and He expects His Word to heard, understood and taken with the absoluteness with which it is given. To heed His warnings, and to believe His assessment of life and all truth. Vss. 20 – 24 especially enhance this point, and 29-30 summarize it: Rejecting knowledge as revealed by God, choosing to believe other sources (including self) instead, rejecting God’s counsel and reproof. Exodus 9:20. Isaiah 66:2 (ESV) — “All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”

Let me ask, do you tremble at his Word?

d. To fear, to tremble His GREATNESS. To be dwarfed in His presence. To face endless, infinite perfections. To think of Him in terms of His massiveness, incomprehensibility and power. Job. Who can walk amongst the burning coals? Is he at all overwhelming to you? Or is your god a manageable little idol of your own making, you can turn any way you wish by pushing the right buttons? ‎

e. To fear him is to tremble at the possibility of the LOSS of Him. To be separated from Him is death in every conceivable way. David crying “take not your Holy Spirit from me” – Psalm 51. Of he was not present, would it not make any difference to you? If you would not miss him, you do not fear the loss of him, you do not love him. You only fear to lose, what you love.

f. To fear, to tremble at His DISPLEASURE. He is not a paper tiger. Not as to fear a harsh master, but to disappoint the most loving, tender and perfect Father.

‎To be truly over-awed at Him for who and what He is. Father, give me this fear, and the infinite joy it begets.

It is to live at all times in the full awareness of the implications of dealing with a Self-sustaining, all-knowing, all-powerful being who is everywhere at once; Who created all things for His own purposes and pleasure (including myself), and who in His holy perfections MUST judge all evil – anything and everything that in any way contrary to His nature, His plans or His purposes.

Romans 8:29–30 (ESV) — 29 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. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

O the power of a single word sometimes. And in this case, in this amazing and majestic passage – the word, “FOREKNEW.”

Believer, set your heart upon it today. Mull it over. Let the speaking of settle on your tongue like a spoonful of honey. Savor it. Let it sink afresh into your heart and mind. Sing aloud to your own heart throughout the day.

“Whom he foreknew.”

Jesus did not die a blind death.

He did not die and abstract death.

Sinner, he knew you. He knew all your faults, and all your sins, though they still lay in the future.

He knew all your circumstances, all your corruptions, all your doubts before you doubted them, and all your fears before they terrified you.

He knew all the places you would fail even after your new birth. All your ill-spoken words, polluted thoughts and transgressions. All you left undone, and all you should never have done.

He knew every temptation you would face, and every place where you would yield to it. He knew how strong the bonds of sin would be, and how vacillating your love would be.

He knew all those vows you made to walk in holiness and then promptly broke. All your obstinate refusals to properly and fully repent own your sin.

All your lies, deceits and deliberate disobedience.

He knew your self-centeredness, selfishness, prayerlessness and spiritual cowardice.

He knew how you would charge him falsely in dark providences and fail to thank and praise him for all his graces. How you would spend your gifts on the World, and think more of earthly things than heavenly.

He knew your excuses for sin, your justifications for failing to mortify the deeds of the flesh and how you blamed and raged against him in the aftermath of your own failings and foolish decisions.

He knew YOU. Thoroughly, intimately, personally and comprehensively.

And still, that is the you he predestined to be conformed to the image of himself.

It is that you he called, and justified and will glorify – so certainly that the text can put it as a present reality.

This is the one who asks you to trust him fully. For he knew you this way, before he ever came and died for you.

He knew you.

This is the you he died for.

Proverbs 23:1-8 / “When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food. Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. When your eyes light on it, it is gone, for suddenly it sprouts wings, flying like an eagle toward heaven. Do not eat the bread of a man who is stingy; do not desire his delicacies, for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the morsels that you have eaten, and waste your pleasant words.”

Vss. 1-8 of Proverbs 23 function as a unit. And there is so very much to be gleaned here.

The idea in vss. 6-8, which informs the whole unit, is that people often have hidden agendas. Benjamin Franklin called them “axes to grind”. He recounted an experience from his youth when a man approached him, flattering him on how well he was sharpening some farming implements. Then the man asked if he could be so honored as to have such skill applied to getting on getting his own axe sharpened. The flattered youth took the task on due to the flattery. And the man returned several more times until Franklin caught on to what was really happening. The flattery was offered, simply because a man had “an axe to grind.” When such people offer you something, they do so not with an eye to actually bless you – though they may even rationalize it in their own minds as such – but rather to achieve some end of their own. This is the meaning of “their heart is not with you”. Not every gift, is truly a gift in the end. Many are bribes and tools of manipulation. Beware. If not, the supposed blessing will come back upon you in a most unpleasant way. You’ll receive nothing from it when all is said and done.

Now there is a pointed application here to the promises of those seeking power – i.e. politicians – in vss. 1-4. Make no mistake, few indeed are those who serve elected office in our present governmental system who have altruistic motives behind the campaign promises they make.

The Hebrew here will admit both – observe carefully “what” is before you, and “who” is before you. And indeed, there is no need to choose – for both need be considered. What are they promising? And what is the character of the one promising?

We hear promises of easy money, safer streets, social safety nets, or expanded gun rights, and even religious freedoms. When you enter the voting booth, put a knife to your throat if you are hungry for what they have promised you as a delicacy to your appetite – however good your appetite may be. Look not to their promises or even their agendas – look to their character as much as it can be discerned. Wild, extravagant campaign promises are deceptive food indeed. They cannot be evaluated on the surface. If they are not tied to a man or woman of proven character – you will come to regret it in the end, even if at first, it appears to satisfy what you hunger for.

There is application here to those who seek the affections of others who are emotionally unavailable. To “conquer” one who is cold or indifferent, to finally get them to give you their love or affection, will prove to be but a short lived victory. You will feel so special at having received what they seem to withhold from everyone else, but it is a ruse. Their heart is not really with you. Sooner or later that imagined affection will become exceedingly bitter. You will have wasted your affection on one who can never truly return it.

No where is this more painfully experienced than when you receive accolades in front of someone who is stingy for human praise. You will find the daggers of envy most sharp and barbed.

Father God – give us your wisdom. Keep us from making our decisions based only upon what we see on the outside, what pleases us, tickles our ears or appeals to our dearest appetites. Teach us to consider all through the lens of your Word, and its diagnosis of the fallen human heart. And let us have the agenda of what pleases you most, over and above what may even seem to accord with our perception of what might be a short-term gain. Like the drunkard at the end of this chapter, keep us from indulging in the immediate pleasure of the wine when it is red in the cup, without considering what it will mean when we are in the hold of its stupor, and in the aftermath when we awake – with wounds we never perceived to have been inflicted.

He knew that His hour had come
Thus loving His own to the end
The time for The Supper at hand
His sheep, for the last time to tend

Already Iscariot’s heart
With Satan’s own thoughts had been filled
Yet Christ in His authority
Refused not to go, and be killed

He knew He had come from above
He knew the way back was the Cross
Redemption from sin was the aim
He’d willingly pay all the cost

But first, He would wash all their feet
Though Lord, He would serve like a slave
With meekness and humility
The pathway to Calv’ry He’d pave

He called them to follow His way
But darkness still clouded each mind
And then in the Supper revealed
A traitor among them reclined

Each queried if it could be him
And arguing who it could be
E’en Judas said “surely not I”
Then left on his satanic deed

He then, His New Covenant made
And Peter’s denial revealed
He promised the Spirit to come
By Whom all the saints would be sealed

He poured out preparing them all 
His death would undo them, each one
That He would be killed and then rise
Was God’s means to victory won

Then how in the Garden he prayed
Alone while the others all slept
In agony sweat drops like blood
He prayed that their souls would be kept

The violent mob soon appeared
Arrested they took Him by force
With mockings and beatings they went
A series of illegal courts

And then on to Pilate near dawn
To Herod and back He was borne
Placed in the hands of tormentors
For flogging, and crowning with thorns

Last sent to wretched Golgotha
Nailed to a cross in disgrace
No one but God in the cosmos
Knew this was the myst’ry of grace

With thieves on His left side and right
God’s Lamb substituted for me
He died while enduring just wrath
Meant for me, that I might be free

Crying out “Father forgive them!”
Entrusting His spirit to God
“Tetelestai” It is finished! 
The grave was the last mile He trod

Following three days of silence
A violent earthquake befell
The stone at His tomb was removed
He’d crushed all the powers of Hell 

Appearing to Mary then others
“He’s Risen!” the new anthem rang
Death’s power has lost all its sting
The Church had it’s new song, and sang

Then in His ascent to Heaven
The angels foretold His return
He reigns at the Father’s right hand
Such truth all the faithful discern

Church praise Him! He rose from the dead
Church praise Him! For our sins He groaned
Church praise Him! Sing hallelujahs
Church praise Him! For our sins atoned

Church Praise Him! He keeps all His own
Church Praise Him! He’s coming again
Church Praise Him! He’ll raise us up too
Church Praise Him! God’s final – Amen!

Most of us are familiar with Jude’s emphatic call in vs. 3: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” It is a call all Christians need to take seriously, but especially those in positions of teaching or preaching.

Now a year or two ago, I posted something about a man whose teaching I was made aware of by friends – and I found to be exceedingly dangerous – Jaimie Winship. If you don’t know him – grand. If you are familiar with him and his teaching – then maybe what I’ve included below will spare you a trip down a heretical side-road.

What appears below is the text of a letter I sent to some friends who inquiring about Winship. I had never heard of him before that. And I would not be revisiting the issue now, except that a new Believer recently exposed to his teaching came to my awareness. And based upon Jude 3, I felt compelled to resurrect my concerns, and re-post them with the hopes they will be helpful once again.

Here is the text of my original letter.

Dear XXXX & XXXX – Thanks so much for your patience as I have been taking the time to wade through the Jamie Winship material and do further research. There is a lot to untangle (in my opinion) because there is something to be understood both in what he actually teaches, and also in what he does not say. I wanted to listen to more of his teaching, and to read his book to try my best to be fair and unbiased. Unfortunately, my concerns have only increased.

I’ve written, re-written, edited, had Sky edit and re-worked what I think I need to say a number of times. And I decided after reading his book more carefully, to take an entirely different approach than I did at first. I could just nit-pick my way through the numerous statements in the original audio you gave to us – which are simply poor recounting of Biblical facts. He is pretty loose in that regard. But I don’t think that gets to the core of my concerns. And I wanted to try and arrive at what I believe are the most serious and fundamental flaws – those which pose the greatest spiritual harm in my opinion. And that takes the deeper dive I’ve been doing.

I want to say at the outset that he says a LOT of very, very good and helpful things. In terms of identity, we really do need a Biblical identity. No one could argue with that. Sadly, this truly is a very neglected aspect of much Christianity today. We have in fact let other people’s opinions and some experiences inform how we understand ourselves all too well – and have not corrected that even when we have come to be born again. Yea and amen! I can say I know it from my own experience. BUT! How we arrive at that identity and how we can know what it truly is and authenticate it is where Jamie (and dare I say orthodox Christianity) drastically divide. It is his blend of Christian words and concepts, re-worked by Eastern mysticism and New Age thought which makes it so seductive and dangerous.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I will advance that I think Jamie is sincere, and really believes what he teaches. That said, I believe he is sincerely deceived – and on some of the most critical realities of Biblical teaching. So I’ve avoided virtually all references to him personally, in favor of only examining what he has written and teaches. It is not an attack on the man, but on his doctrines.

I’ll touch on some of these only very briefly, but major on Identity.

I. The Gospel

II. Confession

III. Focus

IV. Identity

V. Miscellaneous

I. The Gospel: On page 30, Jamie recounts a conversation he had with a cab driver. In summing up he says: “This is how Jesus talks to people. In the entire conversation, I never said one thing about being a Christian. The conversation was about personal identity, not empty ideology. When the guy dropped me off, he asked for my card. We’re going to meet so he can hear God tell him his identity. I didn’t suggest that, he did. That’s called sharing your faith.”

Read that carefully. Sharing your faith in Jamie’s view has nothing to do with the Gospel, or the person and work of Christ as God incarnate dying on the cross as our substitute – bearing weight of the just penalty for our sin – but only “personal identity.” And the rest of his teaching only confirms this.

Let me expand here because this is the most serious issue to address, and is at the bottom of everything – The Gospel.

The Scriptural understanding of the Gospel message is that we are born into this world at war with God, as lost sinners: “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:6-10) We are sinners, ungodly, not righteous, God’s enemies. All of this Jamie denies. And what are we saved from? The wrath of God. Jamie denies this too. And as Jesus Himself testifies in John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

For those like yourselves, who have been born again and know that you’ve been saved, simply hearing his teaching on identity might not be as serious a problem, and perhaps even helpful. But in the final analysis, for the un-Believer who comes to his teaching by itself and hearing only this, he will lead their souls to Hell. This is why I refer to his material later as damnable. I do not use that term as a swear word – but for what it truly means – he would leave people in their damned state, abiding under the wrath of God, while thinking they are hearing from and interacting with Jesus. Judas interacted with Jesus – and so did many others, who were never cleansed from their sin. Jamie’s teaching, redefining sin, confession, repentance and the like, absolutely denies and defies the Gospel. And all the while, using Biblical stories, and Christian and Bible terms. It is a wicked and evil deception. And it is why I react so strongly to it. I will give the benefit of the doubt that he is sincere and truly wants to help people, but I care too much for the souls of men to toss it off as a minor difference. It is solidly a Gospel issue. With eternal consequences. And I believe his errant view of sin has potentially bad consequences even for Believers as it leads to ignoring Christ’s call to take up our Cross daily and die to sin and self.  

If we will not judge ourselves as sinners in need of Christ’s substitutionary work on the Cross  – to use the words of Paul in Philippians 3:7-9 “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, 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 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” – if that is not our foundation, we are still lost in our sins. And Jamie never ever goes there in any thing he writes. Never. This was the scandal of Baptism for the Pharisees and Sadducees. To come for baptism was to admit that they were outside the covenant of God and unclean and needed to be cleansed of their sin. This, they would not do. And this, Jamie teaches no one needs to do. All we need to do is find Jesus already in our hearts, and hear him give us an identity.

This is not a mere difference of opinion, this is at the heart of genuine, Biblical Christianity and salvation.

This shows itself in another very graphic way. On Page 33: He recounts a meeting headed by a “Muslim” who is an expert in Sharia Law. While this man brings up Jesus – Jamie’s comment at the end is most telling. He applauds the man because: “He wasn’t trying to convert them to another religion. He was simply leading them into identity transformation.”

This concept continues through the book.

So it is on Page 131 and other places: He refers to “Muslim believers.”

Be careful here. He is not saying merely Iraqi believers, Iranian believers, Saudi or Omani or Syrian believers etc. – but Muslim believers.

Those in Islam that I’ve interacted with (like the young Iranian convert at our Church) are very clear – you cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian. They renounce Islam when they come to Christ. For Islam has a different God, a different Christ, a different salvation, a different ultimate authority (the Quran and NOT the Bible) etc.

Now it is true that Muslims believe in Jesus. But the Jesus of the Quran is not God, but merely a prophet, and one who was superseded by Mohammed. They call Him “Issa.” He can be referred to as “Messiah”, but it does not mean what the Bible means.

So listen to 2 Corinthians 11:1–4 (ESV): “I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”

Suffice it to say here, that while Jamie uses Christian words and phrases, he means something very different from how the Bible uses them and intends them. And in this case, allows others to believe, in fact encourages others to believe in a “different Jesus.” As Paul writes in Galatians 1: “there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

II. Confession: Jamie writes: “Confession is telling God the truth about what you really believe about him, yourself, and others. It’s the greatest act, a sacrament. God loves honest confession. Confession is the beginning of genuine transformation.” (Page 47) This is another example of how he undermines the Gospel, and the Biblical way Believers are to see ourselves as sinners saved by grace.

He denies confession has anything to do with confessing sin. Take just five minutes to check a concordance on the word confession, and you will see that the Bible deals with confession in regard to sin in the vast majority of its cases. Jamie is correct in this – confession is not “just” saying we are sorry – though that is an element; But as Paul writes when having confronted the Corinthians with their sin: 2 Corinthians 7:10–11 (ESV): “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what 1earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment!”

Nothing in Jamie’s definitions comes even close to how the Bible speaks of confession and repentance. In fact tied to this is that repentance is (in his definition) only a change of mind about who we are in God’s eyes. It has nothing to do with turning from sin. And unless I miss my understanding, he really believes a Christian should never feel guilt or shame for anything.

But this is not how the Bible speaks.

III. Focus: Jamie’s entire “method” is self-focused, not Christ focused. Consider that in light of passages like John 5:39 (ESV): “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and 3it is they that bear witness about me.”

While the Scripture does address our identity, as below – that is not the focus – Christ is. So it is when Jesus was resurrected He dealt with the two on the road to Emmaus this way: Luke 24:25–32 (ESV): “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road,

while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Do you see the repetition there? The Scriptures speak of Christ – above all. Everything is centered in Him. When He is not the focus, when our eyes are turned upon ourselves, we lose everything. And this is the problem – everything Jamie talks about – is your identity. Not Christ – you. What was the result of Jesus’ interaction here? Did the two get a better picture of themselves? Or is it as the text reads: “Their eyes were opened, and they recognized – HIM.”

IV. Identity: On page 55 he writes: “Isn’t it beautiful that God is affirming to you that he has always approved of you? It’s not about works or comparison or competition. God made you enough, and that is how he has always seen you.”

And here, once again, we arrive at what I believe is the most basic and fundamental view from which everything else Jamie says and teaches emerges: He does not believe we are born in sin and separated from God in rebellion. He believes ALL people are born good, and that God has always been in them and approved of them regardless of anything else. It is this presupposition that informs everything he holds. It is anti-Gospel.

Now because this is so important, bear with me for just a bit in looking at a passage of Scripture we dare not neglect. Ephesians 2:1–22 (ESV) Now nowhere in anything Jamie says will you ever read the description in this passage regarding what we once were, and that unbelievers are even now – outside of Christ. This is the “identity” the Bible gives the unbeliever:

1 – Dead in trespasses and sins.

2 – Following the course of this world.

3 – Following the prince of the power of the air – the spirit that is not at work in the sons of

disobedience.

4 – Living in the passions of our flesh.

5 – Carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.

6 – By nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind.

7 – Separated from Christ.

8 – Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. (I.e. not among God’s people)

9 – Strangers to the covenants of promises.

10 – Having no hope.

11 – Without God in the world.

12 – Far off from God.

13 – Strangers and aliens.

Now those are drastic and descriptive terms. They describe the un-Believer’s identity, and accord with Paul in Romans when he says that because of Adam’s sin “one trespass led to condemnation for all men.” It is this condemnation Jesus saves us from. It is the very antithesis of Jamie’s assertion of how God always saw us and approved of us.

And this is where his thinking strikes so wickedly at the heart of the Gospel. To Jamie, we don’t need to be saved from this condition, but we simply to wake up to how God has always seen us.

This dear friends is a truly damnable lie. And it is at the very bottom of his entire paradigm.

But let me not stop at what our former identity was – look to what this passage declares the Believer’s true identity is now – in Christ.

1 – Made alive in Christ.

2 – Saved from the just wrath of God.

3 – Raised up with Christ.

4 – Seated with Him in the heavenly places.

5 – Destined to be the objects of His making us experience the immeasurable riches of His kindness toward us in Christ – for all the coming ages.

6 – Gifted all of this by God, not because of our works or worthiness, but because of the great love with which He loved us.

7 – We are His workmanship – His divinely crafted treasure.

8 – Created for good works, that we might walk in them.

9 – Brought near to God by the blood of Christ.

10 – Reconciled to God through the cross.

11 – At peace with God.

12 – Fellow citizens with the saints of the household of God. His FAMILY!

13 – Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

14 – And being built together with all the saints into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Now THAT, is an identity. That is who God says you are as a Believer. And it is not dependent upon whether or not you feel it, or have it whispered in some experience. It is the abiding truth to be believed. It is ours by faith. And there are dozens of passages more to fill this identity out in the most amazing and transcendent of terms.

Think of 1 John 3:2 “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.”

Or 1 Peter 2:9-10 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

Or Zech. 2:8 where those who love God are called “the apple his eye.” The most sensitive, carefully guarded and protected part of Him.

There WILL come a day when God speaks to us personally about a unique identity – it is recorded for us in Revelation 2:17 (ESV): “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.”

This naming is AFTER the resurrection (not now) and is such an act of intimacy that no one else will know it but Jesus and us. And it belongs only to those who live unto Christ and overcome the World, the flesh and the Devil. A far cry from what Jamie is trying to offer us here.

So far from actually needing the atoning work of Christ on the cross to make us one with God again, Jamie embraces the Buddhist conception that we just need to get our thinking straight.

So he writes on Page 57: “This is different from how most of us were taught by “religion.” Most of us were told that our problem is that we do wrong things. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is wrong belief or believing what is not true. This wrong or false belief leads us to separate or deviate from God, ourselves, and others.”

Contrary to the Bible, in Jaimie’s view, sin doesn’t separate us from God – only wrong thinking.

This then is why his “method” as he calls it, works even for non-Christians. “When we are young, God is building into us identity. You don’t have to be a Christian; it’s what God does for all people because God knit together each of us in our mother’s womb. God built identity into each of us.”

For Jamie, salvation is not required to live this fantastic life. Just coming to realize how God has always seen you. Never mind Ephesians or the rest of the Bible.

V. Miscellaneous:

On Page 64 he articulates this idea: “In science, this heart-head connection is called neurocardiology. It’s fascinating that the heart is really the information gatherer and the brain is simply the organizer and processor. The heart gathers information all the time.”

But do you know where he gets this idea? I checked his footnote. It comes from Jordan Chilton Pearce’s “The Biology of Transcendence: A Blueprint of the Human Spirit.” And what of Pearce?

Wikipedia notes: “In the 1970-1980s Pearce practiced meditation under the guidance of Swami Muktananda.

Here is his connection to eastern mystical spirituality. It is anything but Christian.

On page 67 he says plainly he does not even know if he loves God. Think on that. A “Christian” teacher and conference speaker who cannot even honestly say whether or not he loves God! 

And if you question or challenge him on any of his ideas – he says on Page 141: “Why would I receive hostile critique from an angry person when I have the edifying, constructive critique of the Holy Spirit available to me?”

Lastly, on page 149 he utterly rejects (even scorns) the idea that “We have to get into the Middle East and convert those Muslims to Christianity.” This he says is like the Crusades and contrary to God’s kingdom.

I could go on with his mishandling the Scriptures he does use all over the place. But I think I’ve dumped enough on you for now.

One last observation. He mentions his friend Paul Young (of The Shack fame) quite approvingly (both in the book and in some videos) which makes me suspect he has at the base a very similar theological outlook. This is not guilt by association, but guilt by affirmation. As I’ve gone back to listen to Young’s teaching on identity – it is identical to Jamie’s.

And so that I do not misrepresent Young, let me note the chapter headings from his book “Lies We Believe About God.”

What are some of those lies according to Young?

1 – [It is a lie that] God is in control.

2 – [It is a lie] that you need to get saved.

3 – [It is a lie that] the Cross was God’s idea.

4 – [It is a lie that] not everyone is a child of God.

5 – [It is a lie] that sin separates us from God.

Young goes on to say that everyone is already saved – we just have to wake up to it and live in it. Echoes of which I detect throughout Jamie’s book and lectures. Things confirmed when I looked into someone else Jamie and his wife really like – Brad Jursak – another one who blends Christianity with New Age mysticism and Eastern spirituality. And all of this is confirmed in spades in a video from Jamie’s wife where she says in no uncertain terms that we are NOT sinners – because we all came into this world good. In fact, she says she “hates that word” sinners. She has no category for how the Scriptures speak to being sinners at all.

I hope some of this is helpful. Believe me, I take no pleasure in it. But once again, I take the admonition in Jude very seriously, that we desperately need to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” It is a battle for truth and the way God has communicated in His Word.

Lastly, I would recommend a book to you about identity that I believe is far and away more useful in grasping that aspect of the Christian life. My Affliction for His Glory: Living out Your Identity in Christ by Daniel Ritchie. Ritchie, having been born without arms, and struggling with identity in ways I’ll never have to wrestle with – really works through it in a thoroughly Biblical and sweet way. I think you’ll find it not only encouraging, but insightful and Christ exalting. And, I think it would be a great encouragement to John. Here is a link to a very brief video on Daniel and his story: https://youtu.be/h7arJeCth0E

I love you both. And I pray that in my frankness and openness I’ve not said anything to make you doubt that. I have only your best interest at heart, as best as I can enter into it, even if done poorly.

The 3rd principle I’d like to share with you is this:

3 – All sin is ultimately a defect in love

This defect is either toward God, or my neighbor. And one always includes the other. For I cannot sin against God without it being bad for my neighbor, and I cannot sin against my neighbor without it also being a sin against God. (Gal. 5:14-26). But it all begins with a defect in my perception of God’s love!

The human being as the image bearer of God, is not a source of love, but only a responder.

God is love, but we are not.

Our love must and can only spring from His.

We cannot generate it on our own.

When we try, the perverse product is defective in every way.

We must and only can truly love as we know His love for us.

Had Adam and Eve suspected no defect in God’s love for them, they would have remained invincible against temptation and sin.

It was in their suspicion that His love was defective in keeping something good back from them, some necessary or accordant blessing of love, that they then failed to love Him and thus one another in return.

We cannot fix our love in a vacuum or independently, for we cannot produce love – we can only reflect it.

In that we perceive anything at all defective in His love, that defect will be magnified in us as reflectors, and distort if not entirely eclipse the whole of His love. Seeing only the defect, and fearing the loss – we will angrily lash out in sin to obtain what we believe we are being deprived of.

We must study to know the love of God for us in Christ above all things.

Only by deep, rich, full, Spirit revealed beams of God’s love penetrating our hearts and minds, illumining our souls, can we ever come to love Him back, and love those too who are made in His image.

Left to ourselves, love becomes a tormenting fire, but never a liberating light.

Holy Spirit, make me to know Divine love.

I can pray nothing higher for myself, my wife, my daughter, my son-in-law, my grandchildren, my church or my enemies than this.

Do not leave me to myself, for my love is but a sullied and defective reflection, currently distorted by my sin.

Please send your Spirit to strengthen me/us in the inner man to – so that Christ has His manifest dwelling there.

So that we are enabled to know your love in purity and fullness.

That we might be filled with the fullness of God – for it is only fond in knowing your love.

Fill me.

The faith that the just must live in – is the faith to believe God as He has revealed Himself in Christ Jesus, making an all sufficient sacrifice for sin, calling all to come and be reconciled, and overcoming in vast numbers the unwillingness that resides in us all.

Oh grand, divine, in fathomable mystery of God’s great love!

Who can know it?

Who can understand it?

Who dares to so revel and rely upon it as to live in its perpetual and limitless joy?

May I!

It is only in knowing His love, that we can come to be “filled with all the fullness of God.”

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Eph. 3:14-19