Others like god's battleaxe Features >>
About the Book
"God's Battleaxe" by Turnel Nelson is a spiritual book that explores the concept of believers being used as instruments of God's power. The author emphasizes the importance of prayer, faith, and obedience in fulfilling one's purpose as a battleaxe for the Lord. Nelson encourages readers to tap into their spiritual potential to bring about transformation and victory in their lives and the world around them.
Gladys Aylward
Gladys Aylward was born in London in 1904 (or a few years earlier). She worked for several years as a parlormaid, and then attended a revival meeting at which the preacher spoke of dedicating one's life to the service of God. Gladys responded to the message, and soon after became convinced that she was called to preach the Gospel in China. At the age of 26, she became a probationer at the China Inland Mission Center in London, but was failed to pass the examinations. She worked at other jobs and saved her money. Then she heard of a 73-year-old missionary, Mrs. Jeannie Lawson, who was looking for a younger woman to carry on her work. Gladys wrote to Mrs. Lawson and was accepted if she could get to China. She did not have enough money for the ship fare, but did have enough for the train fare, and so in October of 1930 she set out from London with her passport, her Bible, her tickets, and two pounds ninepence, to travel to China by the Trans-Siberian Railway, despite the fact that China and the Soviet Union were engaged in an undeclared war. She arrived in Vladivostok and sailed from there to Japan and from Japan to Tientsin, and thence by train, then bus, then mule, to the inland city of Yangchen, in the mountainous province of Shansi, a little south of Peking (Beijing). Most of the residents had seen no Europeans other than Mrs. Lawson and now Miss Aylward. They distrusted them as foreigners, and were not disposed to listen to them.
Yangchen was an overnight stop for mule caravans that carried coal, raw cotton, pots, and iron goods on six-week or three-month journeys. It occurred to the two women that their most effective way of preaching would be to set up an inn. The building in which they lived had once been an inn, and with a bit of repair work could be used as one again. They laid in a supply of food for mules and men, and when next a caravan came past, Gladys dashed out, grabbed the rein of the lead mule, and turned it into their courtyard. It went willingly, knowing by experience that turning into a courtyard meant food and water and rest for the night. The other mules followed, and the muleteers had no choice. They were given good food and warm beds at the standard price, and their mules were well cared for, and there was free entertainment in the evening--the inkeepers told stories about a man named Jesus. After the first few weeks, Gladys did not need to kidnap customers -- they turned in at the inn by preference. Some became Christians, and many of them (both Christians and non-Christians) remembered the stories, and retold them more or less accurately to other muleteers at other stops along the caravan trails. Gladys practiced her Chinese for hours each day, and was becoming fluent and comfortable with it. Then Mrs. Lawson suffered a severe fall, and died a few days later. Gladys Aylward was left to run the mission alone, with the aid of one Chinese Christian, Yang, the cook.
A few weeks after the death of Mrs. Lawson, Miss Aylward met the Mandarin of Yangchen. He arrived in a sedan chair, with an impressive escort, and told her that the government had decreed an end to the practice of footbinding. (Note: Among the upper and middle classes, it had for centuries been the custom that a woman's foot should be wrapped tightly in bandages from infancy, to prevent it from growing. Thus grown women had extremely tiny feet, on which they could walk only with slow, tottering steps, which were thought to be extremely graceful.) The government needed a foot-inspector, a woman (so that she could invade the women's quarters without scandal), with her own feet unbound (so that she could travel), who would patrol the district enforcing the decree. It was soon clear to them both that Gladys was the only possible candidate for the job, and she accepted, realizing that it would give her undreamed-of opportunities to spread the Gospel.
During her second year in Yangchen, Gladys was summoned by the Mandarin. A riot had broken out in the men's prison. She arrived and found that the convicts were rampaging in the prison courtyard, and several of them had been killed. The soldiers were afraid to intervene. The warden of the prison said to Gladys, "Go into the yard and stop the rioting." She said, "How can I do that?" The warden said, "You have been preaching that those who trust in Christ have nothing to fear." She walked into the courtyard and shouted: "Quiet! I cannot hear when everyone is shouting at once. Choose one or two spokesmen, and let me talk with them." The men quieted down and chose a spokesman. Gladys talked with him, and then came out and told the warden: "You have these men cooped up in crowded conditions with absolutely nothing to do. No wonder they are so edgy that a small dispute sets off a riot. You must give them work. Also, I am told that you do not supply food for them, so that they have only what their relatives send them. No wonder they fight over food. We will set up looms so that they can weave cloth and earn enough money to buy their own food." This was done. There was no money for sweeping reforms, but a few friends of the warden donated old looms, and a grindstone so that the men could work grinding grain. The people began to call Gladys Aylward "Ai-weh-deh," which means "Virtuous One." It was her name from then on.
Soon after, she saw a woman begging by the road, accompanied by a child covered with sores and obviously suffering severe malnutrition. She satisfied herself that the woman was not the child's mother, but had kidnapped the child and was using it as an aid to her begging. She bought the child for ninepence--a girl about five years old. A year later, "Ninepence" came in with an abandoned boy in tow, saying, "I will eat less, so that he can have something." Thus Ai-weh-deh acquired a second orphan, "Less." And so her family began to grow.... She was a regular and welcome visitor at the palace of the Mandarin, who found her religion ridiculous, but her conversation stimulating. In 1936, she officially became a Chinese citizen. She lived frugally and dressed like the people around her (as did the missionaries who arrived a few years after in in the neighboring town of Tsechow, David and Jean Davis and their young son Murray, of Wales), and this was a major factor in making her preaching effective.
Then the war came. In the spring of 1938, Japanese planes bombed the city of Yangcheng, killing many and causing the survivors to flee into the mountains. Five days later, the Japanese Army occupied Yangcheng, then left, then came again, then left. The Mandarin gathered the survivors and told them to retreat into the mountains for the duration. He also announced that he was impressed by the life of Ai-weh-deh and wished to make her faith his own. There remained the question of the convicts at the jail. The traditional policy favored beheading them all lest they escape. The Mandarin asked Ai-weh-deh for advice, and a plan was made for relatives and friends of the convicts to post a bond guaranteeing their good behavior. Every man was eventually released on bond. As the war continued Gladys often found herself behind Japanese lines, and often passed on information, when she had it, to the armies of China, her adopted country. She met and became friends with "General Ley," a Roman Catholic priest from Europe who had teken up arms when the Japanese invaded, and now headed a guerilla force. Finally he sent her a message. The Japanese are coming in full force. We are retreating. Come with us." Angry, she scrawled a Chinese note, Chi Tao Tu Pu Twai, "Christians never retreat!" He sent back a copy of a Japanese handbill offering $100 each for the capture, dead or alive, of (1) the Mandarin, (2) a prominent merchant, and (3) Ai-weh-deh. She determined to flee to the government orphanage at Sian, bringing with her the children she had accumulated, about 100 in number. (An additional 100 had gone ahead earlier with a colleague.) With the children in tow, she walked for twelve days. Some nights they found shelter with friendly hosts. Some nights they spent unprotected on the mountainsides. On the twelfth day, they arrived at the Yellow River, with no way to cross it. All boat traffic had stopped, and all civilian boats had been seized to keep them out of the hands of the Japanese. The children wanted to know, "Why don't we cross?" She said, "There are no boats." They said, "God can do anything. Ask Him to get us across." They all knelt and prayed. Then they sang. A Chinese officer with a patrol heard the singing and rode up. He heard their story and said, "I think I can get you a boat." They crossed, and after a few more difficulties Ai-weh-deh delivered her charges into competent hands at Sian, and then promptly collapsed with typhus fever and sank into delirium for several days.
As her health gradually improved, she started a Christian church in Sian, and worked elsewhere, including a settlement for lepers in Szechuan, near the borders of Tibet. Her health was permanently impaired by injuries received during the war, and in 1947 she returned to England for a badly needed operation. She remained in England, preaching there.
In 1957, Alan Burgess wrote a book about her, The Small Woman. It was condensed in The Reader's Digest, and made into a movie called The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, starring Ingrid Bergman. When Newsweek magazine reviewed the movie, and summarized the plot, a reader, supposing the story to be fiction, wrote in to say, "In order for a movie to be good, the story should be believable!" Miss Gladys Aylward, the Small Woman, Ai-weh-deh, died 3 January 1970.
Dressed in His Righteousness Alone
Iâll never forget meeting up with a mentor of mine at Starbucks shortly after becoming a Christian. We regularly met there to read and study the Bible. One day, a person walked by and was elated to find Christians. But during our conversation, my mentor began asking some pretty forthright questions, and I couldnât quite understand why. âDo you believe that a person is justified by faith alone?â he said. The stranger hesitantly responded, âNo, I believe that a person is justified by faith and works.â My mentor graciously but strongly insisted, âThen you donât have a biblical view of justification.â A lot of back-and-forths followed, but because I was a recent convert, I found it immensely difficult to understand what was going on. I barely understood what the term justification meant! Eventually, I discovered the importance of this vital doctrine. Martin Luther and other Reformers considered the doctrine of justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. It is at the core of the gospel, and the church needs to embrace it as such. What Is Justification? So then, what is justification? This is a crucial starting point. How one defines justification will determine not only how one thinks and believes but also how one lives. Roman Catholic dogma, for example, defines justification as synonymous with sanctification,1 and the result is detrimental. Oneâs standing on the final day is determined by the growth of Christâs righteousness, which is imparted to a person through baptism and increases through participation in the sacraments.2 In a word, justification is essentially a clean slate that one needs to maintain to enjoy a favorable verdict at the final judgment. Diametrically opposed stands the Reformed understanding of justification, which is carefully, succinctly, and biblically defined in the answer to question 33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Justification is an act of Godâs free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.3 Notice that justification is an act, not a work or process.4 It is not a hopeful destination. It is Godâs gracious, once-for-all verdict â his declaration of a person to be righteous in Christ, and therefore fully accepted by God. The Greek words for justification and righteousness, along with their cognates,5 belong to the legal sphere.6 Consider, for example, Romans 8:31â34: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against Godâs elect? It is God who justifies [Greek ho dikaiĆn]. Who is to condemn? Justification language belongs to the courtroom; it is forensic. Accusations are met with Godâs justifying verdict spoken over his elect (see also Romans 5:16â19) â a spoken word that melts the hardened hearts of sinners. Whose Righteousness? God, the holy, just, and perfect Judge, finds sinners not guilty and declares them righteous. How? On the basis of the person and work of Jesus Christ â by forgiving our sins on account of the substitutionary death of Christ in our place (Romans 3:21â26) and imputing or reckoning Christâs righteousness to us (Romans 4:1â9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). What is this righteousness? His perfect obedience to God, rendered in his life and death, often referred to as the active and passive obedience of Christ. He perfectly fulfilled the law (Galatians 4:4â5; Romans 8:1â4) and also died under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), in love for his people (Galatians 2:20). Nevertheless, death could not keep its prey, and so Christ tore the bars away and arose a victor from the dark domain.7 Jesusâs resurrection was not only proof that his sacrifice satisfied Godâs wrath; it was also his own justification or public vindication (1 Timothy 3:16; cf. Romans 4:25). On Resurrection Sunday, God declared the verdict of righteous over his Son, and through union with him, we too receive that unchangeable righteous standing (2 Corinthians 5:21). How Do We Receive It? What is necessary to receive this righteous standing? Faith, works, or a combination of both? The answer is faith alone. Paul makes this clear in Galatians 2:16: âWe know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.â Justification is not a both-and matter. Itâs either by faith or by works. Paul fleshes this out in Romans 10:3â4. He speaks of his Jewish kinsmen as those who are âignorant of the righteousness of God,â are âseeking to establish their own [righteousness],â and thereby do ânot submit to Godâs righteousness.â Then he provides this explanation: âFor Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.â We submit to Christâs righteousness by faith. Just breaths later, in Romans 10:9â10, Paul writes, âIf you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.â No wonder Paul, in the very next chapter, helpfully explains that âif it is by grace [that we are chosen, saved, and presumably justified (see Romans 10:10)], it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be graceâ (Romans 11:6). âJustification is not a both-and matter. Itâs either by faith or by works.â A biblically Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone is indeed comforting to the sinner. âHow can I be righteous before a holy God?â is an appropriate question to ask for those outside of Christ. The only acceptable answer is found in Christ. He is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith. And this doctrine is at the core of the gospel. More to the Gospel than Justification? In loving and declaring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, some can begin to think that justification is the gospel. But that is not true. Simply saying, âJesus died for my sins so that I can receive Christâs righteousnessâ does not capture the entire gospel.8 Paul doesnât stop there when he lays out the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1â4. Jesus also was buried and rose from the dead. In fact, the resurrection of Christ plays a crucial role in our justification (as weâve seen in Romans 4:25; see also Romans 1:3â4; 1 Corinthians 15:20â23, 42â49; 1 Timothy 3:16).9 The gospel also includes Jesusâs ascension, enthronement as Lord, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:3â4; Acts 1:11; 2:1â21; 2:32â33). We therefore should not say that justification is the gospel. And yet, neither should we welcome the persistent emphasis of those who downplay justification, whether by minimizing it to a âsubsidiary craterâ in Paulâs theology10 or, even more drastically, by insisting that âour justification by faith is not part of the gospel.â11 In the end, justification is not the gospel, but it is undeniably at its center.12 If you exclude justification from the gospel, then the gospel ceases to be âgood news.â Solely by Faith? The Reformed tradition has consistently promoted a threefold definition of faith: (1) knowledge of the content of the gospel that we believe (Latin notitia), (2) intellectual assent to the gospel of Christ (assensus), and (3) trust in the person and work of Christ on our behalf (fiducia). Recently some have taken aim at the third part of that definition (trust).13 They argue that faith is not primarily âinteriorâ or âemotionalâ but âexteriorâ and âembodied.â In other words, faith is active rather than passive, and it should be seen rather than felt. So they prefer slogans such as âjustification by allegiance alone,â since allegiance underscores the active nature of faith. Those who argue for this definition of faith make a major mistake. Since they redefine faith as a more active response, they argue that Paulâs either-or of justification is actually a both-and â both faith and works. To be clear here, they do not think a person can be justified by works that stem from self-righteous efforts. They believe Romans 3:20, that âby works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.â However, they underline the phrase âworks of the lawâ and say, âPaul was not against Spirit-wrought good works contributing to a personâs justification.â âChrist is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith.â At this point, you may be feeling the way I did in the conversation at Starbucks, not really understanding the fine distinctions. But this is significant. To say that Paul wasnât against good works with respect to justification, you have to make a drastic move theologically. You have to reject the distinction between justification and sanctification. What do I mean by that? Put simply, justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct, like the heat and light of a fire.14 You cannot have one without the other; at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other.15 Good works, as Paul commends them, are done in our sanctification, but they cannot contribute to our justification. If they do, justification is no longer by faith alone. Is Christâs Righteousness Imputed? After the conversation with the stranger at Starbucks, I asked my mentor, âWhat does imputation mean?â The word was thrown around during our discussion but never really defined. Imputation means that the righteousness of Christ â his active and passive obedience â is counted or reckoned to believers. Christâs righteousness is imputed, counted, reckoned to you when you are united to Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). As Calvin said, âWe do not . . . contemplate [Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that this righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body â in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.â16 When we talk about receiving righteousness, union with Christ is essential. Imputed righteousness is distinct from infused righteousness. In the Roman Catholic view, Christ merited righteousness for us, and that righteousness is then infused into believers at baptism. Itâs as if Christâs seed of righteousness should be planted into your heart. It becomes your own. And it is up to you, in dependence on the Spirit and the sacraments, to water it and grow in personal righteousness. By contrast, the imputation view intentionally uses the words count or reckon, as Scripture does (Romans 4:1â8; 5:12â19; Galatians 3:6).17 In justification, Christâs righteousness does not become ours as some sort of personal possession. It is counted or reckoned as ours. Why? Because we do not perform the acts of justifying righteousness. Christ, as our substitute, lived the perfect life we couldnât and died the death we deserved. The righteousness of Christ must therefore primarily and exclusively belong to him.18 It is therefore an alien righteousness â it comes from outside of us. And it is graciously imputed, counted, or reckoned to those who have no inherent righteousness whatsoever (Romans 3:9, 23; Ephesians 2:1â3). We are indeed âdressed in his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.â19 For nothing else avails before God. Jesus Receives Sinners Listening to the conversation my mentor had with that fellow at Starbucks was intimidating and a bit over my head. I heard many terms and distinctions that didnât seem, at the time, to make much of a difference in the Christian life. But the more questions I asked, the more I learned that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not only theologically essential but thoroughly practical. Just think of Christians who question their salvation as they struggle with sin. In those times, they easily can turn inward. âHave I done enough to please God?â âPerhaps if I serve more at church, he will accept me.â âI need to stop sinning in order to be accepted by him.â They may never say these words out loud. After all, they wouldnât want anyone to think they were weak in faith â or even worse, an unbeliever. But their knee-jerk reaction to turn inward reveals a deeper underlying issue. They need to turn outward toward the objective realities of the gospel. They need to trust in Christ Jesus, their righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30). They need to rest â not only in mind and mouth, but in heart and life â in the âword of surest consolation; word all sorrow to relieve, word of pardon, peace, salvation! . . . âJesus sinners doth receive.ââ20 Catechism of the Catholic Church: âJustification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior manâ (1989); âThe Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the âinner man,â justification entails the sanctification of his whole beingâ (1995). â© See the Council of Trent, âDecree Concerning Justification,â §7. â© I have slightly updated the language to make the answer easier to read. â© The Westminster divines reserved that language for sanctification: âSanctification is the work of Godâs free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousnessâ (Westminster Shorter Catechism 35). â© See the words dikaioĆ, âI justifyâ; dikaiĆsunÄ, ârighteousnessâ; dikaios, âjust, rightâ; dikaiĆsis, âjustification, vindication, aquittalâ; and dikaiĆma, ârighteous requirement.â â© As recently argued by James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461 (TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), though for a criticism of other statements he makes, see my forthcoming review of his book in the Westminster Theological Journal. â© Trinity Hymnal #206, âLow in the Grave He Lay â Christ Arose.â â© That is one reason, after all, why the church disciples new believers: to increase their understanding of the gospel of Christ. â© See also Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paulâs Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987). â© Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 225. â© Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 37. See also Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). â© I am currently in the process of writing a review article of Matthew Batesâs work in the Westminster Theological Journal, which will contain more in-depth critical interaction with his arguments. â© See Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 92. He qualifies this in Gospel Allegiance, 64: âIâm not arguing that faith simply means allegiance without remainder. Nor am I denying that pistis primarily means âfaith/faithfulnessâ or âtrust/trustworthiness.ââ But then he adds a telling caveat: âTrust in or faithfulness toward a leader that endures through trials over the course of time is probably best termed âloyaltyâ or âallegiance.ââ â© John Calvin make this comparison in Institutes 3.11.6. â© I find it telling that Matthew Bates denies the categorical distinction between justification and sanctification because it cannot be found in Scripture (Allegiance, 185â86), and yet, after reading Scripture and laying out his view, he promotes a strikingly similar distinction (see 127, 191â92, 196, and 206). Both justification and sanctification occur in union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). But at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other throughout Scripture âby good and necessary consequenceâ (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). See also the Westminster Larger Catechism 77 for a very helpful analysis of the inseparable yet distinct nature of justification and sanctification. â© Institutes 3.2.10; my italics. â© For helpful works on imputation and criticisms raised against it, see Brian Vickers, Jesusâ Blood and Righteousness: Paulâs Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christâs Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002); Ben C. Dunson, âDo Bible Words Have Bible Meaning? Distinguishing between Imputation as Word and Doctrine,â WTJ 75 (2013): 239â60; Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). â© James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church; and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 326. â© Trinity Hymnal #459, âMy Hope is Built on Nothing Less.â â© Trinity Hymnal #394, âJesus Sinners Doth Receive.â â© Article by David Briones Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary