Paul and Luther defended themselves...Should you? (Luther on Galatians 1:11-24)

In the second half of Galatians 1 (and halfway into chapter 2), Paul recounts with extensive detail how he learned (and did not learn) the gospel he was called to preach.  He does this because the validity of his apostolic ministry was being called into question by other church leaders, and especially by those who have come to be known as the "Judaizers."  As Luther writes, "Paul was forced to speak of his conversion to combat the slanderous contention of the false apostles to the effect that this apostleship was inferior to that of the other apostles."

And Luther himself takes the opportunity afforded by the writing of his commentary to defend his own ministry against the accusations of his critics:

The arguments which the false apostles advanced impress people to this day. "Who are you to dissent from the fathers and the entire Church, and to bring a contradictory doctrine? Are you wiser than so many holy men, wiser than the whole Church?" When Satan, abetted by our own reason, advances these arguments against us, we lose heart, unless we keep on saying to ourselves: "I don't care if Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Peter, Paul, John, or an angel from heaven, teaches so and so. I know that I teach the truth of God in Christ Jesus."

The letter to Galatians is not the only time Paul defends his character and ministry (he does it throughout the book of 2 Corinthians as well).  And the commentary on Galatians is not the only time Luther did it either (the Diet of Worms being one prominent example, of course).

Perhaps you have wondered, like I have...When is it right and wise to defend ourselves, and when should we not? (1 Corinthians 6:7 even says, "Why not rather be wronged?")  That's always a tough question, but maybe Paul's and Luther's words can provide some guidance for us...

Defend yourself when the truth of God's Word, and the honor of God himself, is at stake.

This is obviously Paul's concern in Galatians 1, where at the beginning of the passage he says that his gospel was received through "a revelation of Jesus Christ" (v. 12), and at the end he says "they were glorifying God because of me" (v. 24).  Luther also has the same concerns:

The article of justification is fragile. Not in itself, of course, but in us. I know how quickly a person can forfeit the joy of the Gospel. I know in what slippery places even those stand who seem to have a good footing in the matters of faith. In the midst of the conflict when we should be consoling ourselves with the Gospel, the Law rears up and begins to rage all over our conscience. I say the Gospel is frail because we are frail.

What makes matters worse is that one-half of ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. The flesh resists the spirit, or as Paul puts it, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit." Therefore we teach that to know Christ and to believe in Him is no achievement of man, but the gift of God. God alone can create and preserve faith in us. God creates faith in us through the Word. He increases, strengthens and confirms faith in us through His word. Hence the best service that anybody can render God is diligently to hear and read God's Word. On the other hand, nothing is more perilous than to be weary of the Word of God. Thinking he knows enough, a person begins little by little to despise the Word until he has lost Christ and the Gospel altogether. 

Let every believer carefully learn the Gospel. Let him continue in humble prayer. We are molested not by puny foes, but by mighty ones, foes who never grow tired of warring against us. These, our enemies, are many: Our own flesh, the world, the Law, sin, death, the wrath and judgment of God, and the devil himself.

Defend yourself if your ability to help others is being hindered.

Paul and Luther weren't worried about the effects that misunderstanding and slander would have on their personal pride, their ability to make money, or their reputation for it's own sake.  Rather, for the welfare of others they took the time and energy to respond to public criticism.

This can be seen in the whole tone and context of Paul's words in this passage, and also in 2 Corinthians, where he sometimes even seems apologetic that he has to defend himself when he'd rather not.  Early in that book, he says in Chapter 4 verse 15, "For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God."

Luther likewise says, "Why does Paul harp on this seemingly unimportant fact [that he didn't learn anything from the other apostles]? To convince the churches of Galatia that his Gospel was the true Word of Christ which he learned from Christ Himself and from no man. Paul was forced to affirm and re-affirm this fact. His usefulness to all the churches that had used him as their pastor and teacher was at stake."

In many situations, it's not necessarily right or wrong to defend yourself...only you and God can decide whether you should or not.  But if your motivation is not primarily love for God and others, and it's more about you, "why not rather be wronged?"  It's an opportunity to follow in the steps of Jesus, "who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth; and while being reviled, he did not revile in return; while suffering, he uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to God who judges righteously." (1 Peter 2:22-23).

DAMN those gospel preachers! (Luther on Galatians 1:6-9)

As I've been reading through Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians again after many years, I've come to that DAMN passage in Chapter 1 where Paul DAMNS anyone who preaches a false gospel.  Yes, I'm intentionally using that word, and intentionally using it twice because of Paul's repeated use of the Greek word anathema in verses 6-10 of Chapter 1:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 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. 9 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. 10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

As Luther writes, "The Greek word anathema, Hebrew herem, means to accurse, execrate, to damn."

Let's talk about what the apostle Paul, and the great Reformer, were so worked up about, and how it might apply to us today...  [I am trying to post about relatively small sections of the text in these early articles, so that any of you who would like to read through Luther's commentary with me can get caught up and not get too far behind.  See the end of my first post from last week for recommendations on which versions of the commentary to read...I'm planning to cover about half a chapter per week from now on.]

Luther summarizes the Galatian problem in this way:

Paul calls the false apostles troublers of the church because they taught circumcision and the keeping of the Law as needful unto salvation. They insisted that the Law must be observed in every detail. They were supporters in this contention by the Jews, with the result that those who were not firmly established in faith were easily persuaded that Paul was not a sincere teacher of God because he ignored the Law. The Jews were offended at the idea that the Law of God should be entirely ignored by Paul and that the Gentiles, former idol-worshippers, should gratuitously attain to the station of God's people without circumcision, without the penitentiary performance of the law, by grace alone through faith in Christ Jesus.

Luther also makes practical application and encouragement from the text to his readers:

When the devil sees that he cannot hurt the cause of the Gospel by destructive methods, he does it under the guise of correcting and advancing the cause of the Gospel. He would like best of all to persecute us with fire and sword, but this method has availed him little because through the blood of martyrs the church has been watered. Unable to prevail by force, he engages wicked and ungodly teachers who at first make common cause with us, then claim that they are particularly called to teach the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures to superimpose upon the first principles of Christian doctrine that we teach. This sort of thing brings the Gospel into trouble.

May we all cling to the Word of Christ against the wiles of the devil, "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

So what about today?  What are some examples of "false gospels" that we need to beware of?  Here are some suggestions for you to think about...

The legality gospel.  This is what the Paul and Luther were most concerned about in their times, and the problem still exists today in different forms.  Something is added to grace and faith alone as necessary for us to be justified (declared righteous) before God.  We are told that we cannot be saved without Roman Catholic sacraments, speaking in tongues, water baptism, membership in a specific church, or a plethora of other "works" that are stated or implied to be necessary additions to faith in Christ.

The morality gospel.  This is similar to the first, but defined more by what is not included.  Moral virtues and cultural values are encouraged, while Christ's atonement is minimized or even excluded.  This kind of teaching has been called "Christless Christianity" and "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism," and has difficulty answering the question, "If your message was delivered in a Mormon Church (or even in a Muslim mosque), would anyone be offended by it?"

The immorality gospel.  This is the opposite extreme from the first two, saying that our repentance and obedience to God's law is unnecessary as a consequence or proof of saving faith, or even undesirable because we might somehow become legalistic or moralistic.  In other words, this false gospel says that people can be Christians and go to heaven even though they live a life of disbelief, disobedience and even disregard for what God has said in the Bible.  But although we should never think of our good works as the cause of our justification, we must realize that they are always the inevitable consequence of it.  As James said, faith without works is dead and cannot save.

The prosperity gospel.  Earthly "health and wealth" are not what God promised in His gospel--in fact Jesus said "in this world you will have tribulation."  That's not commonly thought of as one of God's promises, but it was.  And it's more realistic (and consistent with the true gospel) to expect and even embrace suffering and self-denial as an essential part of our journey down the narrow road, which is the way of the cross rather than the couch.

The universality gospel.  "All roads lead to heaven" is a slogan of this false teaching, which rejects the necessary element of exclusivity that is in almost all New Testament gospel passages (and illustrated repeatedly in the Old Testament).  Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me," and anyone who contradicts that is promoting a damnable lie.

The individuality gospel.  This is the idea, which has no precedent in Scripture or church history, that people can be Christians but have no connection to the visible church.  Especially prevalent in American culture, this is tantamount to saying "I want God as my Father but I don't want to be in his family" (see 1 Timothy 3:15, where the local church is called the household of God).

The liberality gospel.  This used to be called "the social gospel," but the primary purveyors of it have exchanged the term "socialism" for "liberalism."  But they have continued to espouse the idea that salvation is essentially achieved by the practice and advocacy of works of mercy and social justice.  They quote the Golden Rule, but fail to recognize that it is a summary of the law of God (which cannot save), and need to hear Luther on the crucial distinction between law and gospel.

The doctrinality gospel.  While perusing our shelves of books recently, my wife unearthed one that had been given to us years ago by some friends.  It was written by a pastor who taught that only Five-Point Calvinists are really saved....if people believed that Jesus died for everybody, for example, they were not trusting in Him alone and would be lost.  Ironically, I fear that was an example of people trusting in their theology rather than in Christ alone.  And I'm concerned that more subtle versions of this problem exist (especially among "Reformed" people), where we think "If anyone is saved, it's surely me" because we've come to a particular understanding of doctrinal truth.

Other thoughts? What other kinds of teaching do you think the apostle Paul might be worried about today?  Tell us in the comments section below.  And if anything I've said here has made you uncomfortable, from my use of a "four-letter word" (for emphasis) to my pointed criticisms of contemporary teaching, please remember that I, like Paul, am not "trying to please man."  As Luther wrote about verse 10...

To this day you will find many who seek to please men in order that they may live in peace and security. They teach whatever is agreeable to men, no matter whether it is contrary to God's Word or their own conscience. But we who endeavor to please God and not men, stir up hell itself.

Oops, there goes another four-letter word!  But all false gospels are truly damnable and hellish and deserve to be addressed in the strongest terms, because people's souls are on the line.

Martin Luther: "Preach the Gospel to Yourself" (from his commentary on Galatians 1:1-4)

"Preach the gospel to yourself" has become a beloved and meaningful maxim to many believers, while others are concerned that it has been overused and often misused. I recently listened to a Q&A with a famous pastor where he was critical of the saying, but then backtracked a bit and qualified his comments when the interviewer said, "But there's some truth to it, right?"

There definitely is truth to it, because it's from the Bible. The apostle Paul basically says the same thing in different words in Romans 6:11: "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." And there are many other passages that encourage us to remind ourselves of gospel truth, whether by command or example.

The problem is sometimes people use it more like a meaningless mantra than a meaning-filled maxim, as if just reciting gospel truth or encouraging others to do it is a means of grace all by itself. And even when the the truth is clearly grasped and sincerely believed, "preach the gospel to yourself" can lead to an imbalance when only part of the gospel is being rehearsed. The "good news" of the gospel includes the message of deliverance from the power and presence of sin as well as the penalty of sin, but sometimes "preach the gospel to yourself" only means the latter. In other words, sometimes people are only looking to the truths of faith and justification to help them with the problems they face, while neglecting the biblical teachings about repentance and sanctification that are also necessary for true change.

But as long as the truth of free justification is understood in the context of the holistic biblical teaching about the gospel, it is often the message we need to hear the most, from others and within our own hearts. And that brings me to Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians, which I just started reading again for the first time since it changed my life almost 20 years ago (along with some friends who have agreed to go through it with me, and will hopefully participate here by posting their comments).

Luther's Commentary on Galatians was his favorite work. It was the first book he wrote after he was tried at the Diet of Worms and then locked up in Wartburg Castle by his friend Prince Frederick to keep him from being killed by the agents of the Pope. Luther always "spoke in thunderbolts," as Charles Spurgeon said about him, and the ordeal that the Reformer had just experienced plus the relevance of the content of Galatians caused his electric words to be even more super-charged than usual.

Speaking of favorites, by the way, Pilgrim's Progress author John Bunyan said, "I do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the Galatians, excepting the Holy Bible, before all books that I have ever seen for a wounded conscience." Regarding his own experience with Luther’s commentary on Galatians, Bunyan wrote, "The God in whose hands are all our days and ways one day brought into my possession a book by Martin Luther. It was his commentary on Galatians.  It was so old that, if I so much as turned it over, it was ready to fall to pieces.  I was so pleased that such an old book had fallen into my hands that when, just a few pages into it, I found my condition so comprehensively described by Luther’s experience, it was as if his book had been written from my own heart."

Notice that Bunyan doesn't say it's the best book ever, much less that it's the only book we need for the myriad of challenges we face as Christians. But as far as it goes, Luther's commentary is a major shot in the arm for those who are plagued by any form of works righteousness and need a big dose of free grace and justification by faith alone. And toward that end, it goes very far indeed.

Here are some excerpts from Luther's comments on Galatians 1:1-4...

The fact is, the more a person seeks credit for himself by his own efforts, the deeper he goes into debt. Nothing can take away sin except the grace of God.

We find no rest for our weary bones unless we cling to the word of grace....Worldly peace provides quiet enjoyment of life and possessions. But in affliction, particularly in the hour of death, the grace and peace of the world will not deliver us. However, the grace and peace of God will. They make a person strong and courageous to bear and to overcome all difficulties, even death itself, because we have the victory of Christ's death and the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins.

Paul sticks to his theme. He never loses sight of the purpose of his epistle. He does not say, "Who received our works," but "who gave." Gave what? Not gold, or silver, or paschal lambs, or an angel, but Himself. What for? Not for a crown, or a kingdom, or our goodness, but for our sins. These words are like so many thunderclaps of protest from heaven against every kind and type of self-merit. Underscore these words, for they are full of comfort for sore consciences. How may we obtain remission of our sins? Paul answers: "The man who is named Jesus Christ and the Son of God gave himself for our sins." The heavy artillery of these words explodes papacy, works, merits, superstitions. For if our sins could be removed by our own efforts, what need was there for the Son of God to be given for them? Since Christ was given for our sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own efforts.

The genius of Christianity takes the words of Paul "who gave himself for our sins" as true and efficacious. We are not to look upon our sins as insignificant trifles. On the other hand, we are not to regard them as so terrible that we must despair. Learn to believe that Christ was given, not for picayune and imaginary transgressions, but for mountainous sins; not for one or two, but for all; not for sins that can be discarded, but for sins that are stubbornly ingrained. Practice this knowledge and fortify yourself against despair, particularly in the last hour, when the memory of past sins assails the conscience. Say with confidence: "Christ, the Son of God, was given not for the righteous, but for sinners. If I had no sin I should not need Christ. No, Satan, you cannot delude me into thinking I am holy. The truth is, I am all sin. My sins are not imaginary transgressions, but sins against the first table, unbelief, doubt, despair, contempt, hatred, ignorance of God, ingratitude towards Him, misuse of His name, neglect of His Word, etc.; and sins against the second table, dishonor of parents, disobedience of government, coveting of another's possessions, etc. Granted that I have not committed murder, adultery, theft, and similar sins in deed, nevertheless I have committed them in the heart, and therefore I am a transgressor of all the commandments of God. "Because my transgressions are multiplied and my own efforts at self-justification rather a hindrance than a furtherance, therefore Christ the Son of God gave Himself into death for my sins." To believe this is to have eternal life. Let us equip ourselves against the accusations of Satan with this and similar passages of Holy Scripture. If he says, "Thou shalt be damned," you tell him: "No, for I fly to Christ who gave Himself for my sins. In accusing me of being a damnable sinner, you are cutting your own throat, Satan. You are reminding me of God's fatherly goodness toward me, that He so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In calling me a sinner, Satan, you really comfort me above measure." With such heavenly cunning we are to meet the devil's craft and put from us the memory of sin.

So there you have it....Luther telling us to preach the gospel to ourselves (and even to the Devil, when we need to resist him!). May you be blessed as I was by what he wrote, and perhaps you would like to join me as I read through this wonderful commentary during my personal time with the Lord over the next few months. You can share your insights, questions, and favorite quotes in the comments section of the posts, and maybe the Lord will allow this to develop into a kind of "study group" where we can be a blessing to one another.

My favorite version of the commentary is this one, but since it's not available on Kindle I got a digital copy of this one because I like to read in my bed at night or right after I wake up in the morning. The latter is the source of my quotes.

A song about Jesus, written a thousand years before He was born

I was reading Psalm 45 recently and discovered that it's all about Jesus.  It’s quoted a number of times in the New Testament in reference to Him, and can’t possibly be about Solomon, because it refers to the son and prince as God himself.  So I also read Charles Spurgeon in his Treasury of David, to see what the great preacher had to say with such an opportunity to wax eloquent on our Lord and Savior.  Please take just a few minutes to read the passage and Spurgeon's comments on its Divine Subject, who as I like to say is “the best thing that ever happened to this planet.”  Jesus is also the best thing that ever happened to me personally, and I hope you will grow along with me to love him more and more!

Psalm 145:2,6-7 says (in KJV, the version Spurgeon used):  2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee forever...  6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.  7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

And Spurgeon says (get ready for some eloquent waxing:),

Verse 2.  Thou art fairer than the children of men. In person, but especially in mind and character, the King of saints is peerless in beauty. The Hebrew word is doubled, "Beautiful, beautiful art thou." Jesus is so emphatically lovely that words must be doubled, strained, yea, exhausted before he can be described. Among the children of men many have through grace been lovely in character, yet they have each had a flaw; but in Jesus we behold every feature of a perfect character in harmonious proportion. He is lovely everywhere, and from every point of view.

Verse 6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. To whom can this be spoken but our Lord? The psalmist cannot restrain his adoration. His enlightened eye sees in the royal Husband of the church, God, God to be adored, God reigning, God reigning everlastingly. Blessed sight! Blind are the eyes that cannot see God in Christ Jesus! We never appreciate the tender condescension of our King in becoming one flesh with his church, and placing her at his right hand, until we have fully rejoiced in his essential glory and deity. What a mercy for us that our Saviour is God, for who but a God could execute the work of salvation? What a glad thing it is that he reigns on a throne which will never pass away, for we need both sovereign grace and eternal love to secure our happiness. Could Jesus cease to reign we should cease to be blessed, and were he not God, and therefore eternal, this must be the case. No throne can endure forever, but that on which God himself sitteth. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. He is the lawful monarch of all things that be. His rule is founded in right, its law is right, its result is right. Our King is no usurper and no oppressor. Even when he shall break his enemies with a rod of iron, he will do no man wrong; his vengeance and his grace are both in conformity with justice. Hence we trust him without suspicion; he cannot err; no affliction is too severe, for he sends it; no judgment too harsh, for he ordains it. O blessed hands of Jesus! the reigning power is safe with you. All the just rejoice in the government of the King who reigns in righteousness.

Verse 7. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness. Christ Jesus is not neutral in the great contest between right and wrong: as warmly as he loves the one he abhors the other. What qualifications for a sovereign! what grounds of confidence for a people! The whole of our Lord's life on earth proved the truth of these words; his death to put away sin and bring in the reign of righteousness, sealed the fact beyond all question; his providence by which he rules from his mediatorial throne, when rightly understood, reveals the same; and his final assize will proclaim it before all worlds. We should imitate him both in his love and hate; they are both needful to complete a righteous character. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Jesus as Mediator owned God as his God, to whom, being found in fashion as a man, he became obedient. On account of our Lord's perfect life he is now rewarded with superior joy. Others there are to whom grace has given a sacred fellowship with him, but by their universal consent and his own merit, he is prince among them, the gladdest of all because the cause of all their gladness. At Oriental feasts oil was poured on the heads of distinguished and very welcome guests; God himself anoints the man Christ Jesus, as he sits at the heavenly feasts, anoints him as a reward for his work, with higher and fuller joy than any else can know; thus is the Son of man honoured and rewarded for all his pains. Observe the indisputable testimony to Messiah's Deity in verse six, and to his manhood in the present verse. Of whom could this be written but of Jesus of Nazareth? Our Christ is our Elohim. Jesus is God with us.

*****That was an old Psalm and old-time preacher, but here’s a contemporary singer and song for you… for some real honesty and authenticity, and a beautiful prayer to that wonderful Savior, check out this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URh5Ne7V8HM 

Applying Concurrence

In the first half of this discussion of a forgotten doctrine that I think should be rediscovered, I defined concurrence as the simultaneity of God's work and man's in the occurrence of man's good works (but not in the evil we do).  In other words, neither occur exclusively from one another, but they concur.  We can't think, say, or do something truly good spiritually unless God's Spirit is doing it in us at the same time (with logical priority given to His work, because He is the ultimate cause of all good).  As Philippians 2:12-13 says, "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

The practical value of concurrence lies in the fact that it affirms the great truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility equally. The Bible itself "walks a tightrope" between them, and much error in Christian practice has proceeded from an over-emphasis on one or the other.

To focus excessively on man's role breeds pride in success and despair in failure, both of which are displeasing to a Lord who said "Apart from me you can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5) and promised that through Him we can do all things (Phil. 4:13). Concurrence keeps God's powerful hand in view and "gives theological statement to the truth of faith that while man by himself does evil, only God can be the author and finisher of whatever good man may accomplish."[1] It secures hope for God's servant as well, reminding him that the strength of the Almighty is behind his efforts.

On the other hand, God's control of every circumstance has often received too much emphasis--leading to a sinful passivity on the part of some. After all, the thought proceeds, if God has foreordained everything that will occur, why should we do anything?

It is in answer to this question that concurrence probably makes its greatest contribution to Christian thought, as it intends "to underscore the fact that God's work does not blot out human activity, but defines and contains it."[2] One convinced of God's absolute sovereignty must understand that God has ordained the means as well as the ends, as Loraine Boettner explains:

"It is not merely a few isolated events here and here that have been foreordained, but the whole chain of events, with all of their inter-relations and connections. All of the parts form a unit in the Divine plan. If the means should fail, so would the ends....If we engage in the Lord's service and make diligent use of the means which He has prescribed, we have the great encouragement of knowing that it is by these very means that He has determined to accomplish His great work."[3]

Likewise, if man does not make use of the means which God has prescribed, he incurs judgment. Boettner illustrates that by the story of "one in Scotland accused and convicted of murder, who said to the judge, 'I was predestined from all eternity to do it.' To whom the judge replied, 'So be it, then I was predestined from all eternity to order you to be hanged by the neck, which I now do.'"[4] 

The doctrine of concurrence, with its basic assertion that God's work and ours do not occur exclusively, but that they concur, especially helps to illuminate four enigmatic areas of human experience: salvation, sanctification, prayer, and evangelism.

Concurrence in Salvation

Divine concurrence is central to Paul's doctrine of salvation. In a very real sense the sinner acts in a way conducive to his acceptance by God: he repents, believes in Christ, produces works as an evidence of that faith, and perseveres. But he is also acted upon by God, who chose him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3), illumined his mind and heart concerning the truth (2 Cor. 4:6), "crucified" him with Christ (Rom. 6:6), granted him faith and repentance (Eph. 2:8; 2 Tim. 2:25), and began a work of sanctification that will continue (Phil. 1:6).

Concurrence affirms God's sovereignty in salvation so that sinners are comforted in knowing that their eternal destiny does not rest upon their own feeble attempts at righteousness, and so they have no reason to boast (Eph. 2:9). But concurrence also upholds the sinner's responsibility to act, for God does not grant the glorious ends of salvation to one who has refused to apply the means. As Boettner says, "If God has ordained a man to be saved, He has also ordained that he should hear the Gospel, and that he shall believe and repent."[5]

Concurrence does not explain all the intricacies of God's saving work; it only affirms that God somehow moves our will so that we desire to follow Christ, and then accepts us because "he that comes to me I will certainly not cast out" (Jn. 6:37). Paul leaves the mysteries unsolved and commands Timothy to "take hold of the eternal life to which you were called" (1 Tim. 6:12).

Concurrence in Sanctification

The historical view of Quietism is an example of an unbalanced view which could profit tremendously from an understanding of concurrence. Quietists regard sanctification (meaning the process by which a believer is conformed to the image of Christ) as entirely the work of God, with man's role being one of near inactivity. The Quietist viewpoint is perhaps best represented by the modern slogan of "Let go and let God."

To their credit, the Quietists base their viewpoint on a valid scriptural truth--that spiritual growth cannot be accomplished apart from God's power. We are not adequate in ourselves (1 Cor. 3:5) and God has promised to enact and complete the work of sanctification (Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24). Quietism ignores, however, Paul's numerous exhortations to apply effort in becoming like Christ. He told Timothy, "Discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness" (1 Tim. 4:7) and "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God" (2 Tim. 2:15). As R.C. Sproul writes:

"Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work.... We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard."[6]

Paul echoes this truth in Romans 15:30 when he says, "Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me." This verse and the afore-mentioned Philippians 2:12-13 ("Work out your salvation,... for God is at work in you") present a doctrine of concurrence in sanctification. Both God and the believer are at work in the process.

Concurrence in Prayer

The believer should merely accept God's promise that "the effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" (James 5:16), but it often becomes difficult to do so when that promise is considered in the light of God's sovereignty. If God has pre-ordained every event, why pray?

First of all, prayer is primarily meant to effect a change in the believer rather than in God, as many Bible commentators have pointed out--for God certainly does not change His mind. But secondly, there is a real sense in which prayer is effective, because it is an ordained means by which God carries out His plan. God takes pleasure in granting the requests of His children, because He then receives their praise:

"And He will yet deliver us, you also joining in helping us through your prayers, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed upon us through the prayers of many." (1 Cor. 1:11)

God's ultimate ability to answer our prayers and the fact that He works concurrently with our actions provide the incentive for the believer to bring petitions before Him. As one author wrote, "If you find yourself exercised with benevolent desires for any object, there is a strong presumption that the Spirit of God is exciting these very desires, and stirring you up to pray for that object, so that it may be granted in answer to prayer."[7]

So answered prayer is made possible by Divine concurrence: God is inclined to act at a time when His children call unto Him fervently (James 5:16), repeatedly (Luke 18:1-8), and from pure motives (James 4:3).

Concurrence in Evangelism

Nowhere does the doctrine of concurrence need to be stressed more than in the realm of evangelism. The relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is most volatile here, leading easily to an imbalance in emphasis.

Though the Bible clearly and repeatedly states that God has foreknown and predestined those who would believe in Christ from before the world began (Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 8:29), many react to this doctrine and ignore it, considering it incompatible with their desire to reach the lost.

On the contrary, Divine sovereignty is the central truth in the whole doctrine of salvation and should be stressed in the context of evangelism. When the truth that "God saves" is foremost in the mind of the evangelist, he will be unlikely to become proud if the results are good and unlikely to sink into despair when they are not.

Furthermore, a belief in God's sovereignty does not destroy incentive toward evangelism, as some think. The confidence that God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6) breeds persistence and endurance, as J.I. Packer asserts:

"Far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless. For it creates the possibility--indeed, the certainty--that evangelism will be fruitful."[8]

That is because of what Jesus said in John 6:37: "All that the Father has given Me shall come unto Me." The results are guaranteed; God will save his people. This was great comfort and incentive for Paul when God spoke to him in Corinth: "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:10).

God is sovereign, and the Bible does not consider that to be a harmful truth. But does that negate our responsibility to evangelize? Many have thought so, at least in practice if not in creed; but this represents the opposite extreme and is equally in error.

Those believing in God's absolute control must once again remember that God works concurrently with our action. He uses means to accomplish His ends, and the means he has ordained in the salvation of men is evangelism. As J.I. Packer wrote, "He sends us to act as vital links in the chain of His purpose for the salvation of His elect."[9] Paul, after his most thorough discussion of God's sovereign choice in Romans 9-10, denounces the idea that evangelism is unnecessary:

"How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom. 10:14-15)

Once again an understanding of concurrence is proven beneficial; in this practical area of evangelism it allows God to receive all the glory for His marvelous work, yet allows men to play a blessed part in it.

Conclusion

The term concurrence needs to be rediscovered in theology, and the doctrine it represents taught more widely. When emphasizing the sovereignty of God, it becomes "a kind of theological praise,"[10] declaring that any good thing originates in Him alone. And when man's responsibility is in view, the doctrine acts as a safeguard against spiritual lethargy.

John MacArthur finds a parallel to Paul's teaching of concurrence in Exodus 14, where Moses and the children of Israel are trapped at the edge of the Red Sea, the Egyptians in pursuit and closing in. Moses shouts to the people with confidence, "Don't be afraid. Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord" (which MacArthur describes as "great faith but bad advice"). The Lord then speaks to Moses, saying, "Why are you crying unto Me? Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to go forward." MacArthur comments:

"It's not 'stand still and see the salvation of the Lord,' it's 'Go forward.' God was going to give the victory, and He was going to give it in such a way that no one would deny that it was Him who did it, and in such a way that it could have never been done with any help from man. But He wasn't going to do it until the Israelites moved forward. What an analogy that is, because that is precisely what Paul is saying to us in the spiritual dimension."[11]


_______________
Endnotes

[1]Roger Hazelton, God's Way With Man (New York:  Abingdon Press, 1956), 77.

[2]G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids:  Eerdman's, 1952), 128.

[3]Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1932), 257.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid., 254.

[6]R. C. Sproul, Pleasing God (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1988), 227.

[7]Charles G. Finney, Revival Lectures (n.c.: Revell, n.d.), 54. Finney’s theology of Divine sovereignty was deficient, I believe, but I also believe he happened to get it right in this quote.

[8]J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1978), 106.

[9]Ibid., 98.

[10]Hazelton, 73.

[11]John MacArthur, Jr., "God At Work In You" (Grace to You audio recording, 1988).

Rediscovering Concurrence

When I wrote the original version of this article as a seminary student over a quarter of a century ago (which explains some things about the style and content), I began it with these words:  "Whereas the sovereignty of God and His providence are doctrines that have suffered from too little emphasis in the modern evangelical church, Divine concurrence is one that has nearly vanished. This doctrine is helpful, however, in understanding God's government and the part men play in it."  During the last 25 years or so, the doctrines of Divine sovereignty and providence have been rediscovered to a significant degree in the American church, but for some reason concurrence has not.  And I still think it would be helpful for people to know about it, perhaps even more now.[i]

According to G.C. Berkouwer, the term concurrence is intended to illuminate the relationship between Divine and human activity.[ii] The Bible repeatedly affirms two paradoxical truths: God is completely sovereign in the affairs of men, yet men make genuine choices and are held responsible by God for their actions. Scripture yields a doctrine of concurrence when it presents the actions of God and man occurring simultaneously, thus allowing some insight (however limited) into the means by which God achieves His will in the world.

Objections to concurrence as a doctrine, raised throughout the history of theology, have contributed to the diminished use of the term. For instance, Charles Hodge (according to Berkouwer) "is of the judgment that in the concurrence doctrine man tries to explain the inexplicable, not content with the simple and certain declaration of the Bible that God does govern all his creatures and all their actions. In concurrence we want to know more than this, we want to know how this is done."[iii]

Hodge is correct when he says the result of such speculation is that "we land in all sorts of metaphysical questions which no one can solve."[iv] Certainly no man can pretend to understand all the intricacies of how God accomplishes His will in the world--His ways are infinitely higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). But concurrence, rightly understood, simply affirms the relationship between God's action and ours, rather than attempting to explain the spiritual dynamics involved. It holds that neither occur exclusively, but that they concur. (And the practical benefits of that truth, presented in part two of this discussion, are significant.)

Webster's dictionary defines concurrence as "agreement in action, opinion, or intent." (Concur is "to happen together, to coincide, to act together to a common end or effect" and concurrent is "happening or operating at the same time.") The plain meaning of the word makes it appropriate for theological use, for it echoes much scriptural teaching about the relationship between God's action and ours.

So for this discussion the doctrine of concurrence is defined as the simultaneity of First Causes (God's will and action) and Second Causes (man's will and action), with logical priority given to First Causes.[v]

The final phrase in that definition counteracts another prevalent criticism of concurrence as a doctrine--that it makes God merely a "helper" or an accomplice in our endeavors, allowing men to take some or most of the credit for their good works. On the contrary, "to believe in the Divine concurrence or assistance means that man stands in dire need of such help and indeed cannot go on without it,"[vi] and "that man, in order to bring his works to a good and right end, requires the assistance of God."[vii] In other words, although men and women make choices and commit acts that are essential for the drama of human history to unfold, but they do so according to a Divine script and under the Director's control.

Concurrence is a theme woven through the entire Bible (cf. 1 Kings 8:58, 61; Ezra 1:5, 7:27; Prov. 21:1; John 15:5; 2 Peter 1:3), but nowhere does it receive more attention than in the writings of the apostle Paul.

God's absolute sovereignty over man is never questioned by Paul. He calls God "the blessed and only Sovereign" (1 Tim. 6:15) "who works all things after the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). He boldly proclaims God to be the First Cause in the salvation of men (Eph. 1:3-11, Rom. 8:29), their subsequent sanctification (Rom. 8:28, 1 Thess. 5:23), the establishment of governments (Rom. 13:1), and even everyday events (1 Cor. 4:19, 16:7).

Paul places equal emphasis, however, on man's responsibility. His epistles are filled with commands enjoining men to exercise their will in conformity with God's law at the risk of eternal or temporal judgment. Realizing his own responsibility before God, he says "I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

But Paul does more than merely assert the dual truths of God's control and our action--he frequently indicates a unique connection between the two. Consider, for example, his admonition to the Philippians in 2:12-13:

 "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

We are at work and God is at work, at the same time, toward a common end. Paul presents this same co-operation of causes in 2 Corinthians 8:16 when he says, "Thanks be to God, who put the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus." As Jerry Bridges writes, "Titus' actions are attributed by Paul to both God, who put a concern for the Corinthians into Titus' heart, and to Titus, who acted with enthusiasm and on his own initiative. Titus acted freely, yet under the mysterious sovereign impulse of God."[viii]

Likewise the churches of Macedonia (in the same chapter), who gave in abundance because of their own desire, did so "by the will of God" (vs. 5).

When Paul speaks of himself, he mingles God's work with his own desire and effort. He begins five epistles by stating that his apostleship is "by the will of God." But his service to God was also the consuming desire of his heart: "I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls," he says in 2 Cor. 12:15 (cf. Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 9:16-17). He refuses to boast in what he claims God has done through him (Rom. 15:18), but admits that his own effort is a necessary ingredient in the Divine work:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)

"And for this purpose I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me." (Col. 1:29)

Paul knew this concurrence of Divine and human action did not take place in him alone; therefore he could tell believers, "We have confidence in the Lord that you will do what we command" (2 Thess. 3:4). He commands them to "Stand firm in the Lord" (Phil. 4:1), but affirms that "he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4; cf. Jude 24). He says "Rejoice in the Lord" (Phil. 3:1, 4:4) but also "May God fill you with peace and joy" (Rom. 15:13). And for those he admonishes to "be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might" (Eph. 6:10) he prays "that He would grant you,... to be strengthened with power through His Spirit" (Eph. 3:16).

Of further note are Paul's constant references to Divine concurrence in phrases such as the following: "We overwhelmingly conquer through Him" (Rom. 8:37), "giving thanks through Him to God" (Col. 3:17), and "Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure" (2 Tim. 1:14).

Finally, Paul's doctrine of concurrence "has primarily in view man's good works"[ix] and does not extend to the area of man's sin. Paul is clear that God does not cooperate with man in evil, but rather "will provide a way of escape" from it (1 Cor. 10:13). He also tells the Galatians that "this persuasion," which was hindering them from obeying the truth, "did not come from Him who calls you" (Gal. 5:8). Paul ascribes full responsibility for sin to the sinner (Rom. 7:24); therefore "the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things" (Rom. 2:2; 2 Thess. 1:6).

Paul agreed with the concern of his fellow apostle James, that God should never be blamed for our sin. James wrote, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15). But James also clearly agreed with Paul about Divine concurrence in all the good things that happen in this world, because he immediately adds, “Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures” (vv. 16-17).

The apostolic teaching in the New Testament is consistent in affirming that the active and responsible agent in all good is the Creator, while the active and responsible agent in all evil is the creature (whether fallen angels or sinful humans). So although it is theologically accurate to say that God ordained evil, has planned for it to occur, and brings good out of it for His sovereign purposes, it is not correct to say that He “cooperates” in it or “causes” it in the sense of active and responsible agency. That is what the Westminster Divines were trying to communicate when they said that God is not “the author of sin” [x]—though they may have chosen some regretful and confusing terminology. God is the “author” of sin in the sense that He planned it and controls it (the analogy of a scriptwriter/director in our culture may be more helpful), but He is not the “author” of sin in the sense that he promotes it or acts it out (both ideas that are related to the etymology of the word).

God does, however, do all of those things when it comes to decisions we make and actions we take that are pleasing to Him. He is the source of all good, in every way, and He even “rewards His own gracious gifts,” as Martin Luther was fond of saying. He arranged for the universe to work this way so that only He would ultimately receive glory, which is in fact the ultimate good that could ever be achieved. He is our Creator and perfect in all he does, therefore He is the only One truly worthy and deserving of glory. So, as Jeremiah 9:24 and 1 Corinthians 1:31 say, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” The doctrine of Divine concurrence reminds us that one day it will be crystal clear that God deserves the glory and thanks for everything good, so that we can give it to him now as a part of our everyday lives.

In part two I'll discuss some practical implications and applications of the doctrine of concurrence...


_______________

Endnotes

     [i]Whenever Christians become aware of the scriptural doctrine of God's sovereign control, numerous questions inevitably arise in their minds about the relationship of that doctrine to human responsibility (such as those mentioned in the second part of this article). Concurrence is the most concise and appropriate designation for the answers to those questions, and that alone makes the term useful for theological discussion.

     [ii]G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1952), 126. To my knowledge, Berkouwer is the only well-known scholar who made wide use of the term "concurrence," although most other scholars have discussed the doctrine it represents to some degree.

     [iii]Ibid., 128.

     [iv]Ibid.

     [v]Marc Mueller, Theology I Syllabus, The Master's Seminary, 1989.

     [vi]Roger Hazelton, God's Way With Man (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), 74.

     [vii]Ibid., 75

     [viii]Jerry Bridges, Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts (NavPress, 1988), 61.

     [ix]Hazelton, 77.

     [x]The Westminster Confession, Chapter III Section 1. One of the Scripture references they include for this statement is James 1:13-17.

A Metaxas Miracle

The story of what just happened to me last night could be added to the chapters in the back of Eric Metaxas' book Miracles as another example of what he believes that word describes.

I loved Metaxas' book about Bonhoeffer so much that I was thrilled to see this new one at my local library a month or so ago, and I checked it out. I was not so thrilled when I saw some of the content, and have often thought of writing a review of it here on my blog, even to the point of renewing the book a couple times. But I never got around to doing that, and got a notice from the library that it was due the next day and couldn't be renewed anymore, so I grabbed it out of my pile and set it on my desk to remind me to take it back in the morning.

Then the really "miraculous" stuff started happening. I was preparing to teach a class for that next day at a local school and one of the topics raised in the textbook was the different opinions among Christians about whether miracles still happen or not. Thinking through how I would present both sides of that debate made me think of the Metaxas book, which happened to be sitting on my desk in front of me, and made me think again about writing something. Then during a break from my prep I saw a controversial tweet by Metaxas that someone had posted on Facebook, where he quoted Bonhoeffer as saying that every sermon should have "a shot of heresy" and said that he was about to interview the author of The Shack on his new book. Which made me think even more about Miracles and convinced me to finally write about it. If I used the kind of language that appears in the book, I would say God gave me this miracle of amazing coincidences and unmistakable supernatural impressions to get me to write this article. So if you don't like what I say, you'll have to blame Him, because He spoke to me and led me to do it through these miraculous signs and promptings, etc.

I don't talk like that, actually, and that's why I didn't like parts of the book. Many of Metaxas' general thoughts about miracles are good, and I agreed with the whole section defending the ones depicted in Scripture. But there are problems with his discussions of modern day miracles, which unfortunately makes much of the book problematic. One of those problems is that he summarily dismisses (in one paragraph) the view of many Christians who do not believe that all the kinds of miracles depicted in the Bible occur today, and he misrepresents them too. On page 72 he describes such Christians as "dispensationalists," but if he would have taken even a modicum of time and effort to look into this further, he would have found out that many "cessationists" are not dispensationalists. In fact, most of the teachers I find persuasive from that perspective are not dispensational, and I myself am not.  (See my book Decisions, Decisions at the link on the right for my own discussion of the issue.)

But the biggest problem with the book is that Metaxas hasn't done enough careful work in discerning and understanding the issue of miracles itself. He fails to distinguish (especially in his example chapters at the end) between the "remarkable providences" that God does all the time (and at all times) and the "signs and wonders" that He has only done at specific times in history to usher in new eras of Divine revelation and validate the messengers who delivered it (see Hebrews 1:1-2 and 2:3-4). What happened to me last night is an example of the former, as are many of the examples Metaxas records in the final chapters. But many of the miracles depicted in Scripture are unique and unrepeatable today, precisely because they were intended to be "signs" pointing to the unique and unrepeatable phenomenon of new Scriptural revelation being delivered by God to His people.

Ironically, Metaxas makes a good case for this idea himself on pages 18-19, though he doesn't seem to recognize the impact it should have on his understanding elsewhere:

"The parting of the Red Sea is another example [like the resurrections from the dead] of how atypical and staggering such things were at the time they occurred.  God very much meant it to be so. If the Red Sea parted every few years it would have meant nothing when it parted 3,500 years ago so that the Israelites could escape the approaching Egyptian soldiers. We could then regard its parting just in time for the Israelites to escape Pharaoh's army as a happy coincidence of timing.  But since the Red Sea never parts of its own accord--it is many hundreds of feet deep where the Israelites would have crossed--we may conclude that God was intentionally doing something inexplicably and toweringly attention-getting. That was plainly the point of it. It is not in any way presented in the pages of Exodus as something that might be taken for granted. It was meant to be taken--and was taken--as epochal, as a hinge in the history of the world."

Compare that to a story Metaxas tells in his example chapter called "The Power of God." in which a friend of his felt a strong impression in a worship service to lay hands on his pastor and "suddenly began to feel what he very distinctly describes as 'a warm sphere' emanating from the center of his stomach. Brad says that he uses the word 'sphere' specifically and deliberately, because it wasn't a vague, 'gooey' feeling. 'No,' he says, 'this was an actual sphere, a ball, an orb that I could tangibly feel.' He describes it as 'warm, round, and pulsating.' Then, while this was happening, he became aware of his prayer for the pastor 'taking on a life of its own.'"

In contradiction to his cogent explanation of the uniqueness of the biblical "signs and wonders," Metaxas believes that the parting of the Red Sea and his friend's worship experience are both miracles, and uses the same word to describe both. And that is the problem with many of the miracles he describes in the last section of the book... I won't deny that people experience such things, but I would call them "remarkable providences" that God does constantly in the lives of His people, rather than using the same terms the Bible reserves for "atypical and staggering" things like bodily resurrections and the Red Sea.

Other examples in that last section of the book, however, raise another concern I have about Metaxas' apparent lack of discernment. He mentions earlier in the book that Satan and demons can do "signs and wonders" as well, but he doesn't seem to realize that could be happening in some of the more obviously supernatural events relayed in his examples (especially when the people involved may be under the influence of false doctrine, like his Roman Catholic friends). Some of these fantastic occurrences may have been merely imagined, of course, because our minds are extremely complex and can convince us of unreal experiences (take dreams, for example). But there are supernatural powers at work other than God, and according to Scripture his enemies actually have a penchant for "signs and wonders" (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 15:13-14, 16:13-14.)

I know these issues are difficult to fully understand and explain, and that my understanding and explanations may create even more questions than they answer. So in humble recognition of that difficulty, let me end this discussion by throwing out an idea in the form of a question. I've been thinking along these lines lately, especially after studying the passages I just mentioned in Revelation, but I realize I might be missing something and may need someone to correct me...

Are there any New Testament prophecies that say or imply that God will do "signs and wonders" after the Scriptures have been completed? In other words, the NT writers made numerous predictions of things that would happen after the time they were writing.  Whether those things would happen soon after they wrote or long after depends on our interpretation, of course, but everyone agrees they were predicting future events beyond the time when the Scriptures were written. And although they predict a lot of "signs and wonders" happening by the power of Satan and his demons, I don't see any prophecies saying that God would be doing those things during the church age. On the contrary, I think other passages imply that He would not be doing the same kinds of miracles any longer (1 Corinthians 13:8, Colossians 2:18, Hebrews 2:3-4). Obviously those "cessationist" proof texts are much disputed, but I'm wondering if the lack of future prophecy about Divine "signs and wonders," coupled with the predictions about demonic "signs and wonders," might corroborate the idea that the only ones occurring during the church age will be counterfeit ones that are the result of either demonic or self deception. And when you study church history, it does seem that most of the movements and individuals who strongly emphasized "signs and wonders" have been theologically heterodox or questionable at best. Remember, please, that I'm not referring here to the many "remarkable providences" that all Christians have experienced, but claims of performing "signs and wonders" just as Christ and the apostles did.

If the Bible does not predict God doing more such "signs and wonders" beyond the New Testament, but repeatedly says counterfeit ones will occur, we should at the very least be extremely careful and even skeptical about those that are reported.