Others like the winning wisdom Features >>
About the Book
"The Winning Wisdom" by David O. Oyedepo is a motivational book that discusses the principles of success and prosperity based on biblical teachings. The author emphasizes the importance of faith, positive thinking, and taking action to achieve one's goals. Oyedepo shares personal experiences and practical advice to inspire readers to unlock their potential and live a fulfilling life.
Charles Colson
F Scott Fitzgerald once said: "There are no second acts in American lives." Charles Colson might have caused him to reconsider. In 1972, Colson, who has died aged 80, boasted to his colleagues in Richard Nixon's White House that he would "walk over my own grandmother" to get Nixon re-elected. His path led not over his grandmother, but through the Watergate scandal to prison, and then to a remarkable transformation into an evangelical Christian leader, bestselling writer and prison reformer.
"Chuck" Colson called himself Nixon's "hatchet man", and it was in this role that he drew up the president's famous "enemies list". High on that list was Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971. The papers were a series of secret reports commissioned by John F Kennedy's defence secretary Robert McNamara which contradicted the public policy statements of three American administrations over the Vietnam war. Nixon assigned Colson to discredit Ellsberg.
Colson, armed with a budget of $250,000 from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, had already hired his former college classmate E Howard Hunt to create the White House unit known as "the plumbers", as they were intended to stop embarrassing leaks. Hunt's team burgled the offices of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and made plans to have Ellsberg beaten, while Colson leaked smears to the press.
In early 1972, Colson got White House approval for a plan concocted by Hunt and G Gordon Liddy, another of the plumbers, to "gather intelligence" for the upcoming election. Hunt's burglars were caught by a sharp-eyed security guard inside the Democratic party's headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington. An address book found on one of them led back to the White House, but the scandal failed to have an impact on the election, which Nixon won. Colson joked with Hunt that Watergate would be remembered as a brilliantly conceived escapade to "divert the Democrats' attention from the real issues, and therefore permit us to win a landslide we probably wouldn't have won otherwise". Without realising it, Colson had created the template which now dominates modern politics.
But after the election, the Watergate investigations persisted. As Nixon's aides toppled one by one, Colson led the effort to smear those testifying, including another White House lawyer, John Dean, whose evidence against Nixon was particularly damning. Finally, Colson, too, resigned, in March 1973. A year later, he was indicted for his part in the cover-up. Facing an impeachment trial, Nixon resigned on 9 August 1974.
Colson's religious conversion began while he was awaiting trial. Thomas Phillips, chairman of the defence contractor Raytheon, gave him a copy of CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, and he joined a congressional prayer group. When the 60 Minutes interviewer Mike Wallace challenged his sincerity, Colson decided to atone. Colson's lawyers negotiated a plea bargain of guilty to one count of obstruction of justice relating to the Ellsberg break-in. Sentenced in 1974 to one to three years, he served seven months in federal prison and was released in January 1975. Ellsberg himself said that he doubted the conversion, noting that Colson continued to deny more serious crimes.
Colson was born in Boston. His father, Wendell, worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission. Colson attended Browne & Nichols, an elite school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and then went to Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, on a naval reserve programme. After graduation, he served in the marine corps, then became an aide to the Massachusetts senator Leverett Saltonstall. Through Saltonstall, he met Nixon, then US vice-president, and in his own words, instantly became "a Nixon fanatic".
After getting his law degree from George Washington University, he worked on Saltonstall's successful 1960 re-election campaign, before founding a law firm which became influential. In 1964 he wrote a memo to Nixon, who had lost the California gubernatorial election, outlining his plan to return Nixon to prominence; and in 1968 he joined Nixon's campaign. Nixon won the presidency in 1969 and appointed Colson his special counsel.
In prison, Colson embraced born-again Christianity. In his biography Charles W Colson: A Life Redeemed (2005), the former Tory cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken says that Colson "transferred his huge drive, intellect, and maniacal energy from the service of Richard Nixon to the service of Jesus Christ". After prison, Colson wrote a bestselling memoir, Born Again (1976), which was filmed in 1978.
He also founded a series of non-profit organisations, such as Prison Fellowship Ministries, which aimed to convert the convicted. Colson wrote more than 30 books, channelling the royalties into his ministries, to which he also donated the $1.1m Templeton prize, for promoting religion, which he won in 1993.
In 2000, the Florida governor Jeb Bush reinstated Colson's voting rights (in that state, a convicted felon may not vote), saying: "I think it's time to move on. I know him, he's a great guy." In 2002 Colson joined fellow evangelicals in signing the Land Letter, urging President George W Bush to pursue a "just war" in Iraq. In 2008 he received the Presidential Citizens medal from Bush.
Colson is survived by his second wife, Patricia, and by two sons, Wendell and Christian, and a daughter, Emily, from his first marriage, which ended in divorce.
Charles Wendell Colson, political aide and prison reformer, born 16 October 1931; died 21 April 2012
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