It is time for an open Book test--all multiple choice regarding the Master's choice.
1. In the creation of the whole universe and of man in particular,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose to create everything including man.
b. Man chose to be created, and God knew ahead of time that man wanted to be created, so on that condition He created man according to man's wishes.
c. Man decided he wanted everything including himself created, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
2. In the account of Noah and the flood,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Noah and his family to be rescued from the coming flood.
b. Noah wanted to be saved from the coming judgment, so God knew ahead of time that Noah
wanted to be saved, so on that condition He rescued Noah and his family according to their wishes.
c. Noah decided to build the ark on his own, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
3. In the account of Abram,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Abram to be the father of His people and the father of many nations.
b. Abram wanted to become the father of God's people, and God knew ahead of time that
Abram wanted to be the father of His people, so on that condition He called Abram to be the father of the Hebrews and of many nations.
c. Abram decided to leave Ur to go to Canaan to be the father of a new people, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
4. In the account of the twins Jacob and Esau,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Jacob and not Esau even before they were born.
b. Even before he was born, Jacob wanted to be chosen by God, and God knew ahead of time
that Jacob wanted to be chosen, so on that condition He chose Jacob instead of Esau even before they were born.
c. Even before he was born, Jacob decided he wanted to be chosen over his brother Esau, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
5. In the account of the tribe of Judah,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Judah and not the other eleven tribes to be the tribe from which the Messiah would come.
b. Judah wanted to be the tribe from which the Messiah would come, so God knew ahead of
time that Judah wanted to be chosen, so on that condition He set apart Judah as the chosen tribe from which the Messiah would come.
c. Judah decided to be the special tribe from which the Messiah would come, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
6. In the account of Joseph,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers so that Joseph could be the one to rescue his family from a coming famine.
b. Joseph wanted to be sold into slavery by his brothers, and he wanted to go to Egypt and be
separated from his family for many years, so God knew ahead of time that Joseph wanted
to go through all that, so on that condition God chose Joseph to be the deliverer of his family.
c. Joseph decided to do everything mentioned above, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
7. In the account of Moses,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Moses to be the deliverer of His people who were in bondage in Egypt.
b. Moses wanted to be the deliverer of God's people, and God knew ahead of time that Moses wanted to be the deliverer of God's people, so on that condition God chose Moses to be the deliverer who would lead His people out of Egypt.
c. Moses decided to become the deliverer of God's people, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
8. In the account of the tribe of Levi,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose the tribe of Levi to be the tribe from which would come all those who would minister at the Tabernacle.
b. The tribe of Levi wanted to become that tribe from which all would come who would minister at the Tabernacle, and God knew that the tribe of Levi wanted that distinction, so on that condition God chose the tribe of Levi for that purpose.
c. The tribe of Levi decided to be the tribe from which all would come who would minister at the Tabernacle, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
9. In the account of Joshua,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Joshua to lead His people after the death of Moses.
b. Joshua wanted to become the next leader of God's people, and God knew ahead of time that Joshua wanted that position, so on that condition God chose Joshua to lead His people after the death of Moses.
c. Joshua decided to become the leader of God's people after the death of Moses, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
10. In the account of all the judges in Israel,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will chose which people He would raise up to be judges to lead His people.
b. Certain people volunteered to be judges, so God knew ahead of time they wanted to serve as judges, so God chose those people to be His judges.
c. Certain people stepped forward to be judges, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
11. In the account of David,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose the shepherd boy David to be His king over Israel.
b. The shepherd boy chose to be King, and God knew ahead of time that David wanted to be King, so on that condition God chose David, son of Jesse, to be King over Israel.
c. David decided to leave the sheep and become King over Israel, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
12. In the account of Jeremiah,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Jeremiah before he was born to be His prophet to His people.
b. Jeremiah while he was in his mother's womb chose to become God's prophet, and God knew ahead of time that Jeremiah wanted to be a prophet, so on that condition God chose Jeremiah to be His prophet.
c. Jeremiah decided to become a prophet, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
13. In the account of Jonah,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Jonah to be His prophet to Ninevah.
b. Jonah wanted to become a prophet to Ninevah, and God knew ahead of time that Jonah wanted to be a prophet, so on that condition God chose Jonah to be His prophet.
c. Jonah decided to become a prophet, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
14. In the account of all the other prophets,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose which men would be His prophets.
b. Certain men wanted to become prophets, and God knew ahead of time which ones wanted to become prophets, so on that condition God chose them to be His prophets.
c. Certain men decided to become prophets, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
15. In the account of Mary and Joseph,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose out of all the people in Israel which ones, Mary and Joseph, would be the earthly parents of His Son.
b. Mary and Joseph wanted to be the earthly parents of God's Son, and God knew ahead of time they wanted to be the parents of His Son, so on that condition God chose them above everyone else to be the earthly parents of the Lord.
c. Mary and Joseph decided to become the earthly parents of God's Son, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
16. In the account of the place of Jesus' birth,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Bethlehem to be the birth place of His Son.
b. The town of Bethlehem wanted to be the birth place of God's Son, and God knew ahead of time that it wanted to be the birth place of the Messiah, so on that condition God chose Bethlehem to be the birth place of His Son.
c. Bethlehem decided to become the birth place of the Messiah, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
17. In the account of the twelve apostles of our Lord,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose which twelve men would be the apostles.
b. Twelve men wanted to become the apostles of Jesus, and God knew ahead of time which ones wanted to be His apostles, so on that condition God chose those twelve to be the apostles of Jesus Christ.
c. Twelve men decided to become the apostles of Jesus, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
18. In the account of the apostle Paul,
a. God out of His sovereign pleasure and will unconditionally chose Paul (Saul of Tarsus) even before he was born to be an apostle.
b. Saul of Tarsus, before he was even born, wanted to become an apostle of Jesus Christ, and God knew ahead of time that Saul wanted to become an apostle, so on that condition God chose Saul to be His apostle.
c. Saul decided to become an apostle even before he was born, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
19. In the account of the love of God,
a. God unconditionally loved us, His people, before we first loved Him.
b. We wanted to love God, and God knew ahead of time we wanted to love Him, so on that condition He loved us.
c. We decided to love God, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
20. In the account of a great number of sinners who would be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for God's glory alone,
b. A great number of sinners wanted to be saved, and God knew ahead of time who those people were who wanted to be saved, so on that condition God chose those people to be saved.
c. A great number of sinners decided to be saved, and God stood by and said "okay" and gave His stamp of approval.
So, how did you do on this multiple choice test regarding the Master's choice?
Wait just a minute. . .I think I hear a word of protest.
Maybe most have figured out by now that one of the multiple choice statements is missing one important possible answer.
I venture to say that much of the current stream of Christian thought seems to think that answer does not exist anyway, even if scriptural consistency demands it to be there.
But, on a more hopeful note, if more believers begin to have their eyes opened to the truth of God's uncondtional election all the way from eternity past to eternity future, then the word of protest will not be directed at what is missing in one of the statements on this man-made test. Instead, it will be directed toward what is vitally missing in the individual's Christian life, teaching and practice today, and what is missing in the church's life, teaching and practice today.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Simply put, I'm dead, you're dead, we're all dead
My parents were very simple folks. Neither one had an education beyond the 8th grade. (Yet, that is three grades more than Jethro Bodine. For those you have no idea what I'm talking about, I feel sorry that you have lived such an uncultured life.) While my parents did not have much book sense, they had tons of horse sense.
As my wedding day inched closer and closer, my mom one day, with her typical sheepish grin, gave me some homespun advice. While she was sitting on her sofa, she looked up at me and said, "Chris, I don't want you to compare your wife's cooking with my cooking." That tidbit of common sense kept reverberating in my mind, and it sure did save our marriage lots of unnecessary grief. Since that advice was given about thirty-one years ago, I have passed that wisdom on to others many times in pre-marital counseling.
As the groom, who would become my brother-in-law, and his groomsmen were gathered in the side room before we were to march into the church auditorium, the groom asked me if I had any last minute advice before I, the minister who would tie the knot, would lead them all out to face the crowd. I hesitated not one second, and I rattled off my mom's famous words. The groom and his friends nodded in stunned silence and looked at me in awe, as if I had said something that was on par with e equals mc squared.
I was the first one in our family tree who received a college degree. While I have papers that show I have gained some book sense along the way, I still prefer to think that some of my parents' common sense is floating around in that grey matter upstairs. Although I don't succeed at doing it as much as I need to, throughout my pastoral ministry, I've made it one of my aims to try to join forces between book sense and common sense. I figure if I can make things understandable to third graders, I might be able to reach most adults, like me, as well. Rather than tickling one's funny bone or spouting pop psychology each Lord's Day, every minister of the gospel should be preaching to people's heads. But we can and should talk to people's heads without talking over their heads.
Biblical doctrines are not as complicated as some people make them out to be. The Bible is not simplistic; it is the most profound book ever composed. Yet, it is profoundly simple. Is that an oxymoron? How can something be profound and simple at the same time? Yet, it is true. Only God can pull off a feat like that.
As we begin our plunge into the five points of man's salvation from sin, the story line in the Bible from beginning to end, we face immediately the issue of man's Total Depravity. That is the T in TULIP. (See previous articles.) It is not just that the word "tulip" begins with the letter "t", but everything we understand about salvation really begins here at this point. Using some common sense with some book sense, we can boil everything down to one simple question:
"What can a dead person do?"
Can a dead person inhale and exhale? Can a dead person whistle a tune or gaze at the moon? Can a dead person wiggle his pinkie or play with a Slinky? Can a dead person comb his hair or slice up a pear? Can a dead person go for a stroll or dig a hole? Could or would a dead person do any of those things on a train, a plane, in a box, with a fox? (My apologies for being loose with Seuss.)
If you say that a dead person can do absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, zero, then congratulations, you have identified yourselves with those dreaded "C" people, talked about some articles ago.
If you say that a dead person can do something, howbeit, so small, then we have some more talkin' to do.
Simply put, the Bible says I'm dead, you're dead, we're all dead. That is the spiritual condition of man at the moment of conception. We are not on life support, we are not comatose, we are not in ER, we are not terminally sick, we are not one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peal. We are dead. Dead in our trespasses and our sins. (Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13) Not sick in our sins. Not ill in how we feel. Not in a world of hurt. We are dead.
My mom died just a few days before her 81st birthday in 2001. My sister had called on the phone to her apartment to check on her one evening. She never answered the phone. My sister rushed over there to find Mom sitting in her favorite chair with her feet propped up on the ottoman, right next to her pet parakeet's cage. She died of cardiac arrest. Very peaceful was her death, but she was dead. There was nothing that my sister or I could do for her. There was nothing that my mom could do. We could yell in her ears, we could shake her arms, we could throw ourselves on her and cry our hearts' out, but she would never respond to us. Why? She was dead.
God told Adam and Eve that would be the case if they ate from that tree. "In the day that you eat of the tree, you shall surely die." Even if we only have a 5th grade education along with Jethro, our mathematical computations would show us that Adam lived 930 years, and he died (Genesis 5:5), and 930 years do not equal 1 day. So he and his mate didn't die physically the day they ate in disobedience to their Maker. So in what sense did they die that same day?
As my wedding day inched closer and closer, my mom one day, with her typical sheepish grin, gave me some homespun advice. While she was sitting on her sofa, she looked up at me and said, "Chris, I don't want you to compare your wife's cooking with my cooking." That tidbit of common sense kept reverberating in my mind, and it sure did save our marriage lots of unnecessary grief. Since that advice was given about thirty-one years ago, I have passed that wisdom on to others many times in pre-marital counseling.
As the groom, who would become my brother-in-law, and his groomsmen were gathered in the side room before we were to march into the church auditorium, the groom asked me if I had any last minute advice before I, the minister who would tie the knot, would lead them all out to face the crowd. I hesitated not one second, and I rattled off my mom's famous words. The groom and his friends nodded in stunned silence and looked at me in awe, as if I had said something that was on par with e equals mc squared.
I was the first one in our family tree who received a college degree. While I have papers that show I have gained some book sense along the way, I still prefer to think that some of my parents' common sense is floating around in that grey matter upstairs. Although I don't succeed at doing it as much as I need to, throughout my pastoral ministry, I've made it one of my aims to try to join forces between book sense and common sense. I figure if I can make things understandable to third graders, I might be able to reach most adults, like me, as well. Rather than tickling one's funny bone or spouting pop psychology each Lord's Day, every minister of the gospel should be preaching to people's heads. But we can and should talk to people's heads without talking over their heads.
Biblical doctrines are not as complicated as some people make them out to be. The Bible is not simplistic; it is the most profound book ever composed. Yet, it is profoundly simple. Is that an oxymoron? How can something be profound and simple at the same time? Yet, it is true. Only God can pull off a feat like that.
As we begin our plunge into the five points of man's salvation from sin, the story line in the Bible from beginning to end, we face immediately the issue of man's Total Depravity. That is the T in TULIP. (See previous articles.) It is not just that the word "tulip" begins with the letter "t", but everything we understand about salvation really begins here at this point. Using some common sense with some book sense, we can boil everything down to one simple question:
"What can a dead person do?"
Can a dead person inhale and exhale? Can a dead person whistle a tune or gaze at the moon? Can a dead person wiggle his pinkie or play with a Slinky? Can a dead person comb his hair or slice up a pear? Can a dead person go for a stroll or dig a hole? Could or would a dead person do any of those things on a train, a plane, in a box, with a fox? (My apologies for being loose with Seuss.)
If you say that a dead person can do absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, zero, then congratulations, you have identified yourselves with those dreaded "C" people, talked about some articles ago.
If you say that a dead person can do something, howbeit, so small, then we have some more talkin' to do.
Simply put, the Bible says I'm dead, you're dead, we're all dead. That is the spiritual condition of man at the moment of conception. We are not on life support, we are not comatose, we are not in ER, we are not terminally sick, we are not one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peal. We are dead. Dead in our trespasses and our sins. (Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13) Not sick in our sins. Not ill in how we feel. Not in a world of hurt. We are dead.
My mom died just a few days before her 81st birthday in 2001. My sister had called on the phone to her apartment to check on her one evening. She never answered the phone. My sister rushed over there to find Mom sitting in her favorite chair with her feet propped up on the ottoman, right next to her pet parakeet's cage. She died of cardiac arrest. Very peaceful was her death, but she was dead. There was nothing that my sister or I could do for her. There was nothing that my mom could do. We could yell in her ears, we could shake her arms, we could throw ourselves on her and cry our hearts' out, but she would never respond to us. Why? She was dead.
God told Adam and Eve that would be the case if they ate from that tree. "In the day that you eat of the tree, you shall surely die." Even if we only have a 5th grade education along with Jethro, our mathematical computations would show us that Adam lived 930 years, and he died (Genesis 5:5), and 930 years do not equal 1 day. So he and his mate didn't die physically the day they ate in disobedience to their Maker. So in what sense did they die that same day?
They died spiritually. Much later they would die physically. The Bible speaks of a third kind of death--an eternal death, described in Revelation as the lake of fire, the second death, everlasting hell. We who are dead now and who die in our sins will one day die, and after that, death. Physical death will soon catch up with our spiritual death, and eternal death then will overtake them both. The wages of sin is spiritual, physical and eternal death. God makes a multitude alive in Christ, removes the sting of physical death, and grants eternal life. Pretty good trade-off, wouldn't you say?
A dead person can not respond to God. A dead person can not exercise his will. A dead person can not believe. A dead person will not repent. A dead person will not seek after God. (Romans 3:10-19) A dead person can not understand the things of God. A dead person will not entertain lovely thoughts about God. A dead person is dead, and a dead person can do absolutely nothing.
So what does a dead person need before he can do any of the above? First and foremost, he needs life. He needs to be raised from the dead. He needs resurrection. ('Ephesians 2:1-5)
Who can do that? Can you or I raise the dead? Can we assist God in raising us or others from the dead? Or can only God and He alone raise the dead?
Total depravity does not mean that all of us are as bad as we can be. Thank the good Lord that is not the case. A world of ruthless, bloodthirsty, cold-blooded murderers would not be a beautiful sight. Total depravity simply means that sin has so affected every ounce of our being, that we are in God's sight dead. We are brain dead, will dead, heart dead, affections dead, priorities dead, just plain ol' dead through and through. We can never be as good as we must be. Our pride does not like to hear things like this about us. But the Great Physician insists we take this strong medicine so that we can really appreciate and adore the cure even more.
Before a dead person can respond in belief, he must be born again. Birth (or new life) precedes belief. Resurrection precedes repentance. The cart of the new birth, or regeneration, comes before the horse of trust and repentance. Now we know why Jesus talked about being born again to Nick at night in John 3 before He mentioned belief later on in the chapter. Now we know why in John 1:13 we are told that the only ones who can believe and receive Jesus (v.12) are those who have been previously been born of God, and not by the will of man. Any conference that focuses only on John 3:16 and ignores the first part of John 3 is doing a great disservice to the words spoken by our Lord.
A dead person does not assist God in helping God to raise him from the dead. A dead person can do nothing, remember? Lazarus was not raised from the dead, because he willed it, asked for it, urged it, sought it. Until Jesus said to him, "Lazarus, come forth," Lazarus could not move his little pinkie, or play with a Slinky, go for a stroll or dig a hole. Lazarus did not work in cooperation with Jesus to make his life from the dead possible. We who are dead in our sins do not meet God halfway on the road to salvation. Dead people don't go anywhere anyway, let alone somewhere halfway.
Yet, I hear some people say, "This is all true. God says we are all dead in our sin, but we still can ____________________ (fill in the blank)." If that is anyone's sentiment, then we need to back up and go back to the beginning: "What can a dead person do?"
Now if we are dead, and God's diagnosis is 100% accurate 100% of the time, then how can anyone be saved? How can a dead person believe? How can a dead person repent? How can a dead person do anything? I'm glad you asked. . .
Must a person believe in Christ and repent of his sin? A thousand times yes. Anyone who does so will be saved. That's a promise. But the question goes back a step further. How can a dead person do those things?
God always must make the first move. Since dead people can't do a thing, Somebody has got to do something for any of us.
Simply put, if you got the "T" down to a tee, then you are ready for the "U".
So, hopefully, all newlywed grooms or fiances learned a simple thing that can have some profound effect in our relationship with the one we love. And to the more encompassing audience of dead sinners, hopefully, we all learned a simple thing that can have some profound effect in our relationship with the One who first loved us.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Doctrine of (an American) Election
What can be said that hasn't been said already about the results of Tuesday's national election?
H.O.P.E. Here's One Post Election analysis that may not make it on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox News.
What does it reveal about a nation that when that nation decides to choose its leader, the determining factors seem to be such things as eloquence, charisma, youthfulness, energy, image, good looks, and a celebrity persona? What does it say when a country picks its leader based upon style over substance, and what substance there is shows a radical departure from the original founding documents of that country?
Now here is the question: Is what I am describing above the nation of America only, or can it also be describing a huge segment of the modern-day holy nation of God, the church (1 Peter 2:9)? What happens when the church chooses its leaders based upon star appeal, flashy personality, eloquent speaking ability, personal ambition and drive, well-marketed image, good looks before the camera, a large following, and a polished persona? What does it say when a nation, such as the nation of God, picks its leaders primarily based upon style over substance, and what little substance there is shows a radical departure from the original sixty-six Founding Documents of that nation?
I hear Jesus in the foreground saying something about a speck and a log.
So, holy nation of God, take a good look in the mirror after the disappointing results in this year's American election. If you are disgusted in how your fellow citizens chose its leader, then how disgusted are you that much of the modern church has been choosing its spiritual leaders for many years now based upon the very same things we cry against in this year's election year perceived fiasco? If we raise any amount of protest against the current American scene, but are strangely silent when our spiritual leaders are chosen the same way we chose this year's presidential winner, then what does that make us?
We can all HOPE and pray that the modern church will awaken from its long spiritual slumber and repent; we need to quit pointing our fingers at the national media, the Democratic Party, special interest groups, the President-elect, the current President, the Republican nominee, or whoever or whatever. Even if none of the above changes, we who are God's children must. Judgment does not begin at the White HOUSE, the U.S. HOUSE, the state HOUSE, but the HOUSEhold of God. If we do repent from our stylishly sinful ways, then that will be a substantial Change We Can All Believe In.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
H.O.P.E. Here's One Post Election analysis that may not make it on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox News.
What does it reveal about a nation that when that nation decides to choose its leader, the determining factors seem to be such things as eloquence, charisma, youthfulness, energy, image, good looks, and a celebrity persona? What does it say when a country picks its leader based upon style over substance, and what substance there is shows a radical departure from the original founding documents of that country?
Now here is the question: Is what I am describing above the nation of America only, or can it also be describing a huge segment of the modern-day holy nation of God, the church (1 Peter 2:9)? What happens when the church chooses its leaders based upon star appeal, flashy personality, eloquent speaking ability, personal ambition and drive, well-marketed image, good looks before the camera, a large following, and a polished persona? What does it say when a nation, such as the nation of God, picks its leaders primarily based upon style over substance, and what little substance there is shows a radical departure from the original sixty-six Founding Documents of that nation?
I hear Jesus in the foreground saying something about a speck and a log.
So, holy nation of God, take a good look in the mirror after the disappointing results in this year's American election. If you are disgusted in how your fellow citizens chose its leader, then how disgusted are you that much of the modern church has been choosing its spiritual leaders for many years now based upon the very same things we cry against in this year's election year perceived fiasco? If we raise any amount of protest against the current American scene, but are strangely silent when our spiritual leaders are chosen the same way we chose this year's presidential winner, then what does that make us?
We can all HOPE and pray that the modern church will awaken from its long spiritual slumber and repent; we need to quit pointing our fingers at the national media, the Democratic Party, special interest groups, the President-elect, the current President, the Republican nominee, or whoever or whatever. Even if none of the above changes, we who are God's children must. Judgment does not begin at the White HOUSE, the U.S. HOUSE, the state HOUSE, but the HOUSEhold of God. If we do repent from our stylishly sinful ways, then that will be a substantial Change We Can All Believe In.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
There really is more to the Bible than John 3:16
As a teenager I was a member of a mega-church, before they were even called by that name. We had on a few occasions the Chaplain of Bourbon Street come preach at our church. He was a famous evangelist in his time, with the flare and charisma to match anyone in his day. His comic routines were probably just as well-known as any of his sermons. One of his famous lines was that before he was saved, that he was so lost and so unschooled in the Bible, he thought that John 3:16 was the men's room on the third floor. That brought a good chuckle from the crowd, but now almost forty years later, I often wonder if a good bulk of professing Christians know much more beyond John 3:16. If that is so, then that is no laughing matter.
On numerous times on Sunday evenings or Wednesday evenings at church in previous pastorates, I would ask for volunteers in the congregation to quote one of their favorite verses in the Bible. Maybe it was something they had read the past week. Without fail, John 3:16 would be quoted right off the bat. Sometimes Romans 8:28 would be cited. On a few occasions, someone would quote or read something directly from the Bible. More times than that, there were long periods of silence. Embarrassingly, I was inwardly hoping somebody would say something to break the silence, even it were just, "Jesus wept," or the verse out of Hezekiah, "God helps those who help themselves."
John 3:16 is a beautiful verse. Who can deny that? But contrary to what I have witnessed through the years in the lives of too many professing Christians, there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. For example, there is a John 3:17. There is a John 3:1-15, where Jesus engages a religious leader on the need to be born again, a divine prerequisite before a man is able or willing to believe in Jesus, as is stated in John 3:16. Romans 8:28 is a special verse, too, but there really is Romans 8:29-30. God identifies for us who are the only ones are who can claim Romans 8:28 as a promise--they are the ones who are called, foreknown, predestined, justified and glorified by God. If we continue on through the end of Romans 8 and all the way through Romans 9, then we get a full-blown picture of what it means to be chosen and called by God.
Jesus did not start talking at John 3:16, nor did He stop there. Paul's first words were not Romans 8:28, and his last words were not Romans 8:28. While it is true that we shouldn't put a question mark where God puts a period, it is also equally true that we shouldn't put a period where God puts a comma; we shouldn't interrupt God while He is talking. That is simply not good manners, and more than that, it can lead to terrible theology if we are not careful.
By using John 3:16 in the title of this upcoming conference in Georgia (see last week's article), I know what the conference planners had in mind when they did that. They think that John 3:16 by itself is a death blow to the doctrines of grace. However, the opposite is true. The word "whosoever", so famously included in the KJV and most subsequent versions, is really not in the Greek. The literal translation from the Greek reads, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all the believing ones (participle in Greek) shall not perish, but have eternal life." It is a verse that sounds forth the perseverance of the saints--that all the believing ones shall not lose what they have but will have what they have from God forever. This is a constant note throughout the gospel of John.
Secondly, the word "world" has a variety of meanings. If we conclude beforehand that there is only one possible meaning for the word "world", then we will face enormous interpretation difficulties and glaring contradictions along the way. The apostle John has a special attachment to this biblical word, when we consider that "world" is used 105 times by John in his writings. The rest of the New Testament altogether uses that word 80 times. Of those 105 times by John in his five books, 78 are found in John's gospel.
Many times the "world" is used to denote the human race that is in opposition to God. Jesus would make a distinction between those who are His and those who are of this world. (13:1, 17:9). Sometimes it is used as a hyperbole, like in John 12:19. Whereas in John 3:16 we read that God loves the world, we read in 1 John 2:15-17 that we are not to love the world. Only when one understands how many meanings there are to the word "world" can we properly understand what is being said. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies under the power of Satan, but "world" there does not include every single person in the world, because believers are super-naturally exempted. They live under the power of God, and not of Satan. In fact, believers in Christ overcome the world. (1 John 5:4-5)
John the Baptist announces that Jesus is the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Can that possibly mean that Jesus takes away the sin of everyone, which would leave us with universalism, i.e. all people are saved and all will go to heaven? Certainly not. Then what does it mean? This eventually brings us to John 3:16.
The Jews thought that God loved them only. The Jews wanted a Savior for Jerusalem. The Samaritans wanted a Savior for themselves. The Jews thought the Gentiles and Samaritans were so hopeless that they were beyond salvation from God. The Gentile nations in the Old Testament had their own local deities. Along comes Jesus who says He is the Savior of the world, and not just for the Jews. God loves more than just the Jews; His love knows no ethnic, racial, or geographical boundaries. All we have to do to see that this is the right understanding of the word "world" in John 3:16 is to keep reading until we get to John 4, where the first people group to proclaim Jesus to be the "Savior of the world" was a city full of non-Jews. (John 4:42)
God loved the world of Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, the poor, the rich, the slave, the free, the male, the female, the religious, the irreligious, the moral, the immoral, etc., so much that He proved it by giving His only begotten Son that all the believing ones out of this world of people are promised to have eternal life from God and that none of those who believe will ever perish or be lost again. To get the magnitude of the breadth of God's redeeming love and saving power, we read in John's last writing that His people come not from just one group of people, but from all over the world. (Revelation 5:9) Such was what was meant by Caiaphas' off-handed prophetical remark in John 11:50, as is explained in verses 51 and 52.
If John 3:16 is a death blow to anything, it is a death blow to Jewish provincialism, a narrow-mindedness that claims to have a monopoly on God. The gospel in John is a worldwide gospel. Matthew has long been recognized as the most Jewish of the four gospel books, and that is the reason why it is listed first in the New Testament. It serves as a natural bridge from the Old Testament to the New. Matthew begins with a Jewish family tree, but it ends with "He who is born King of the Jews" commanding His disciples to make more disciples out of all nations. This ever-expanding spiritual family tree has large Gentile branches all over the place. (Romans 11) Jesus is Lord and King over a world of believers.
Jesus Christ is the only Savior this world has. No other religious figure, past or present or future, will do. (John 14:6) Jesus makes this exclusive claim about Himself, and so should we. We have an exclusive Savior with an inclusive grace that saves all sorts of believing, repentant folks all over the world.
Like everyone else, I love John 3:16, but there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. There is much more to the gospel of John than just the sixteenth verse in the third chapter. Why not have a John 1:12-13 Conference, where we are told that a person can only receive and believe Jesus unless he is first born of God (see John 3 for elaboration), and that new birth no way involves the will of man? Why not have a John 5:1-9 Conference that ponders the question why Jesus only chose to heal one out of a multitude at this pool at Bethesda? Why not have a John 6:37,39,44,65 Conference that teaches that the only ones who can come to Jesus are those the Father has given and has drawn, and all those like that will come and none will be lost forever?
Why not have a John 10 Conference that lays out in systematic fashion that Jesus lays down His life specifically for His sheep? Why not have a John 17 Conference that demonstrates that Jesus' prayer life is limited in its scope, i.e. He prays only for His own; He does not pray for the world. (Hey, I thought He loved the world! Why then does He not pray for the world?) He only prays for those whom the Father had given to Him, the same group for whom He would die.
The planners of this conference did not have this as their intention, but the very name of this conference may be a subtle indictment of where too many of our church members are. They are stuck primarily on John 3:16, and they have not progressed much farther than that. They tend to be milk drinkers without the appetite for solid food.
All of the above is preliminary point number two. Now we are ready to look at the five major points regarding the redemption of sinners from a sovereign, gracious Savior of the world. Let's leave our straws behind, and let's grab a fork and knife to dig into the meaty dishes God has placed for us at His banqueting table.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
On numerous times on Sunday evenings or Wednesday evenings at church in previous pastorates, I would ask for volunteers in the congregation to quote one of their favorite verses in the Bible. Maybe it was something they had read the past week. Without fail, John 3:16 would be quoted right off the bat. Sometimes Romans 8:28 would be cited. On a few occasions, someone would quote or read something directly from the Bible. More times than that, there were long periods of silence. Embarrassingly, I was inwardly hoping somebody would say something to break the silence, even it were just, "Jesus wept," or the verse out of Hezekiah, "God helps those who help themselves."
John 3:16 is a beautiful verse. Who can deny that? But contrary to what I have witnessed through the years in the lives of too many professing Christians, there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. For example, there is a John 3:17. There is a John 3:1-15, where Jesus engages a religious leader on the need to be born again, a divine prerequisite before a man is able or willing to believe in Jesus, as is stated in John 3:16. Romans 8:28 is a special verse, too, but there really is Romans 8:29-30. God identifies for us who are the only ones are who can claim Romans 8:28 as a promise--they are the ones who are called, foreknown, predestined, justified and glorified by God. If we continue on through the end of Romans 8 and all the way through Romans 9, then we get a full-blown picture of what it means to be chosen and called by God.
Jesus did not start talking at John 3:16, nor did He stop there. Paul's first words were not Romans 8:28, and his last words were not Romans 8:28. While it is true that we shouldn't put a question mark where God puts a period, it is also equally true that we shouldn't put a period where God puts a comma; we shouldn't interrupt God while He is talking. That is simply not good manners, and more than that, it can lead to terrible theology if we are not careful.
By using John 3:16 in the title of this upcoming conference in Georgia (see last week's article), I know what the conference planners had in mind when they did that. They think that John 3:16 by itself is a death blow to the doctrines of grace. However, the opposite is true. The word "whosoever", so famously included in the KJV and most subsequent versions, is really not in the Greek. The literal translation from the Greek reads, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all the believing ones (participle in Greek) shall not perish, but have eternal life." It is a verse that sounds forth the perseverance of the saints--that all the believing ones shall not lose what they have but will have what they have from God forever. This is a constant note throughout the gospel of John.
Secondly, the word "world" has a variety of meanings. If we conclude beforehand that there is only one possible meaning for the word "world", then we will face enormous interpretation difficulties and glaring contradictions along the way. The apostle John has a special attachment to this biblical word, when we consider that "world" is used 105 times by John in his writings. The rest of the New Testament altogether uses that word 80 times. Of those 105 times by John in his five books, 78 are found in John's gospel.
Many times the "world" is used to denote the human race that is in opposition to God. Jesus would make a distinction between those who are His and those who are of this world. (13:1, 17:9). Sometimes it is used as a hyperbole, like in John 12:19. Whereas in John 3:16 we read that God loves the world, we read in 1 John 2:15-17 that we are not to love the world. Only when one understands how many meanings there are to the word "world" can we properly understand what is being said. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies under the power of Satan, but "world" there does not include every single person in the world, because believers are super-naturally exempted. They live under the power of God, and not of Satan. In fact, believers in Christ overcome the world. (1 John 5:4-5)
John the Baptist announces that Jesus is the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Can that possibly mean that Jesus takes away the sin of everyone, which would leave us with universalism, i.e. all people are saved and all will go to heaven? Certainly not. Then what does it mean? This eventually brings us to John 3:16.
The Jews thought that God loved them only. The Jews wanted a Savior for Jerusalem. The Samaritans wanted a Savior for themselves. The Jews thought the Gentiles and Samaritans were so hopeless that they were beyond salvation from God. The Gentile nations in the Old Testament had their own local deities. Along comes Jesus who says He is the Savior of the world, and not just for the Jews. God loves more than just the Jews; His love knows no ethnic, racial, or geographical boundaries. All we have to do to see that this is the right understanding of the word "world" in John 3:16 is to keep reading until we get to John 4, where the first people group to proclaim Jesus to be the "Savior of the world" was a city full of non-Jews. (John 4:42)
God loved the world of Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, the poor, the rich, the slave, the free, the male, the female, the religious, the irreligious, the moral, the immoral, etc., so much that He proved it by giving His only begotten Son that all the believing ones out of this world of people are promised to have eternal life from God and that none of those who believe will ever perish or be lost again. To get the magnitude of the breadth of God's redeeming love and saving power, we read in John's last writing that His people come not from just one group of people, but from all over the world. (Revelation 5:9) Such was what was meant by Caiaphas' off-handed prophetical remark in John 11:50, as is explained in verses 51 and 52.
If John 3:16 is a death blow to anything, it is a death blow to Jewish provincialism, a narrow-mindedness that claims to have a monopoly on God. The gospel in John is a worldwide gospel. Matthew has long been recognized as the most Jewish of the four gospel books, and that is the reason why it is listed first in the New Testament. It serves as a natural bridge from the Old Testament to the New. Matthew begins with a Jewish family tree, but it ends with "He who is born King of the Jews" commanding His disciples to make more disciples out of all nations. This ever-expanding spiritual family tree has large Gentile branches all over the place. (Romans 11) Jesus is Lord and King over a world of believers.
Jesus Christ is the only Savior this world has. No other religious figure, past or present or future, will do. (John 14:6) Jesus makes this exclusive claim about Himself, and so should we. We have an exclusive Savior with an inclusive grace that saves all sorts of believing, repentant folks all over the world.
Like everyone else, I love John 3:16, but there really is more to the Bible than John 3:16. There is much more to the gospel of John than just the sixteenth verse in the third chapter. Why not have a John 1:12-13 Conference, where we are told that a person can only receive and believe Jesus unless he is first born of God (see John 3 for elaboration), and that new birth no way involves the will of man? Why not have a John 5:1-9 Conference that ponders the question why Jesus only chose to heal one out of a multitude at this pool at Bethesda? Why not have a John 6:37,39,44,65 Conference that teaches that the only ones who can come to Jesus are those the Father has given and has drawn, and all those like that will come and none will be lost forever?
Why not have a John 10 Conference that lays out in systematic fashion that Jesus lays down His life specifically for His sheep? Why not have a John 17 Conference that demonstrates that Jesus' prayer life is limited in its scope, i.e. He prays only for His own; He does not pray for the world. (Hey, I thought He loved the world! Why then does He not pray for the world?) He only prays for those whom the Father had given to Him, the same group for whom He would die.
The planners of this conference did not have this as their intention, but the very name of this conference may be a subtle indictment of where too many of our church members are. They are stuck primarily on John 3:16, and they have not progressed much farther than that. They tend to be milk drinkers without the appetite for solid food.
All of the above is preliminary point number two. Now we are ready to look at the five major points regarding the redemption of sinners from a sovereign, gracious Savior of the world. Let's leave our straws behind, and let's grab a fork and knife to dig into the meaty dishes God has placed for us at His banqueting table.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Monday, October 20, 2008
A TULIP by any other name is still a TULIP
The John 3:16 Conference to be held at Woodstock, Georgia, on November 6-7, promises to be a humdinger or a hullabaloo. The men who are speaking at are well-known and have served the Lord well in their lives, so I am not here to throw any mud their way. The express purpose of this conference is to give "a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism." Apparently there is a growing concern that a resurgent Calvinism is going to take over the Southern Baptist Convention, and these speakers want to head it off at the pass.
With the leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and like-minded professors there, most graduates from that school would probably adhere to 5-point Calvinism. In fact, a recent survey revealed that over 30% of all seminary graduates from all of the Southern Baptist seminaries now subscribe to Calvinism. These facts may have many in the denomination quaking in their boots, for fear that their convention is going to be taken away from them by people who follow some strict, unevangelistic, unbaptistic, new doctrine. While there will be speakers at The John 3:16 Conference from other seminaries, not one speaker will be from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. That is not by accident.
Since the speakers at this John 3:16 Conference are planning on addressing each of the five points of Calvinism, I thought I would do the same over the next several articles which I plan to write. I don't know how the speakers will tackle each point, but I have a good idea how I want to approach each point. Others far more capable and gifted have written extensively on this subject, so what I have to say will pale in comparison, but I will give it my best shot.
But before we begin with the first point in the acronym TULIP, I feel compelled to take a much needed digression over two other points. The first preliminary point before we get to the first point is: What do we mean by Calvinism? A person can use the same vocabulary that we do, but end up using a different dictionary than we use. That being said, we need to define our terms very carefully.
Often when I am asked if I am a Calvinist or not, my initial response is, "How do you define Calvinism? or, What do you think a Calvinist is or believes?" More times than not, after I hear the answer, I say something like this, "If that is what you mean by Calvinism, then count me out!" Stereotypes, like old habits, are hard to die.
When I was a pastor near Cleveland, Ohio, with the name "Southern Baptist" in the name of the church where I served, I encountered some of the strangest ideas from folks in the community what Southern Baptists were. Many of them quickly associated us with snake handlers. Why was that? Because south of Ohio were the states of West Virginia and Kentucky from where many Buckeyes had migrated, and in West Virginia, particularly, there were quite a few snake handlers in worship services. So Southern Baptist meant to lots of people in Ohio snake handlers or some other odd cult.
I knew better, but that was the stereotype or the association that was stuck in people's minds. The same can be said in regards to Calvinism. "If you are a Calvinist, that means you don't believe God cares for everybody; man is nothing more than a robot; you don't believe in prayer; you don't believe in evangelism; you don't believe in missions; you are strict and legalistic; you are following the teachings of one man, John Calvin; you relish theological arguments; you are divisive; you have cold, lifeless, highly liturgical worship services; you believe some new doctrine, etc., etc., etc." Again my quick reply is, "If that is what a Calvinist is, then count me out!" But that is not what Calvinists are or, maybe I should say, should be. If any who calls himself a Calvinist, but can be identified with the above descriptions, then he needs to have his head and soul examined. Those are the negative stereotypes, but they do not represent historical fact. That is why we must define the terms first, which I hope to do in coming articles.
Calvinism is simply a nickname. Some of us grew up with nicknames, and in some cases our nicknames become our names. We see a lot of that in the world of sports. When the volleyball teams, swimming teams, or basketball teams were competing in this summer's Olympics, we often heard the chant in the crowd from American flag-waving fans, "U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A." Not once did we hear, "United States of America, United States of America, United States of America." The reason is obvious. We can use, and I do use and prefer to use, other descriptive terms to describe what is meant by Calvinism, such as the doctrines of grace, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, or the sovereignty of God in salvation, but since human nature likes to keep things short and simple, people came up with the nickname "Calvinism".
John Calvin did not invent the doctrine, nor did he coin the nickname, so don't lay the blame at his feet. He was probably the one that best articulated the truths surrounding the salvation of sinners at a time when there was much doctrinal error in the church and at a time when God was raising up men to bring people back to the authority and sufficiency of God's Word. I follow no man. I don't carry a picture of John Calvin in my wallet, nor do I have a picture of him hanging on my wall at my home. I do not preach Calvinism; I preach Christ and Him crucified. There are other things that John Calvin believed that I would take issue with, but when it comes to the central issues of the salvation of sinners, he expressed what the New Testament seems to teach consistently.
Some might raise a good question at this point--"Why do we need labels in the first place? Doesn't the label Calvinist or Calvinism do more harm than good in the body of Christ?" I would tend to agree at one level, but when you stop to think about it, we live with labels every day of our lives. We have a can of Libby's corn in our pantry, we use Tide detergent, we rinse our mouths out with Scope, we wear Nike shoes, we drive a Ford to work, we shop at Wal-Mart, we bank at Chase, we eat at McDonald's, we root for the Cowboys, Sooners, Longhorns, Cornhuskers, Crimson Tide, Gators, Bulldogs, Wolverines, Trojans, Fighting Irish or whatever, we vote for Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we live on Elm Street, we go to a church that has a name or label attached to it, and the list goes on and on. I am a conservative Christian, and that's a label. I don't think any of us want all the stores to start ripping off all labels from their food and clothing products. Labels or names are just an inescapable part of life. I use "humdinger" and "hullabaloo" at the beginning of this article; if you don't know what those labels or names mean, then you are nothing but a young whipper snapper (another label or name).
When the Lord blessed us with daughter number four, who was born on my father's birthday and my birthday, my wife and I let our three older daughters name the child. They came up with the name Rose. We liked it, and we went with it. Although, jokingly, I did tell the girls there was another flower name I preferred, but Rose does sound better than Tulip. We have come up with cute nicknames for Rose, more or less a play on the name of Rose, like Rosie, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
The same goes for Tulip, the acronym that explains the five points of Calvinism. If one prefers a different label or term or word than Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. You would get no argument from me. For those who have received my articles for five plus years, one knows that I hardly ever use the word Calvinist or Calvinism. It does not come up in my sermons either. Since the "C" word is such a lightning rod word, and since it is so misunderstood, I shy away from mentioning it much of the time. Other words or terms will suffice, but a Tulip by any other name is still a Tulip.
In fact, I have probably never used the word Calvinist or Calvinism as much at anytime as I have in this article. The only reason I have done so here is because The John 3:16 Conference raises the issue, and it would be hard to address something without using the appropriate words so used. In coming articles on this doctrinal matter, the "C" word will fall by the wayside. My chief concern will be, "What does the Word of God say?"
Preliminary point number two before we launch into the five points will have to wait until another posting, but as I close this article, let me state something very emphatically. I refuse to let my blood pressure go through the roof over this issue. I have better things to do with my life than to get my stomach tied up in knots when people want to have a heated argument over these matters. My overarching goal in life is not to make everyone a Calvinist. I consider myself a fun-loving person, and I want to keep it that way. So, if you disagree with future postings on this subject, I will not lie awake at night wondering if you are really saved or not. Nor will I slug it out with you with email diatribes. Feel free to ask questions; in fact, I welcome them. Mental aerobics is good exercise. If the truth, any truth, can not stand up to any rigid examination, then how can it be the truth?
Yours in Christ,
Chris
With the leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and like-minded professors there, most graduates from that school would probably adhere to 5-point Calvinism. In fact, a recent survey revealed that over 30% of all seminary graduates from all of the Southern Baptist seminaries now subscribe to Calvinism. These facts may have many in the denomination quaking in their boots, for fear that their convention is going to be taken away from them by people who follow some strict, unevangelistic, unbaptistic, new doctrine. While there will be speakers at The John 3:16 Conference from other seminaries, not one speaker will be from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. That is not by accident.
Since the speakers at this John 3:16 Conference are planning on addressing each of the five points of Calvinism, I thought I would do the same over the next several articles which I plan to write. I don't know how the speakers will tackle each point, but I have a good idea how I want to approach each point. Others far more capable and gifted have written extensively on this subject, so what I have to say will pale in comparison, but I will give it my best shot.
But before we begin with the first point in the acronym TULIP, I feel compelled to take a much needed digression over two other points. The first preliminary point before we get to the first point is: What do we mean by Calvinism? A person can use the same vocabulary that we do, but end up using a different dictionary than we use. That being said, we need to define our terms very carefully.
Often when I am asked if I am a Calvinist or not, my initial response is, "How do you define Calvinism? or, What do you think a Calvinist is or believes?" More times than not, after I hear the answer, I say something like this, "If that is what you mean by Calvinism, then count me out!" Stereotypes, like old habits, are hard to die.
When I was a pastor near Cleveland, Ohio, with the name "Southern Baptist" in the name of the church where I served, I encountered some of the strangest ideas from folks in the community what Southern Baptists were. Many of them quickly associated us with snake handlers. Why was that? Because south of Ohio were the states of West Virginia and Kentucky from where many Buckeyes had migrated, and in West Virginia, particularly, there were quite a few snake handlers in worship services. So Southern Baptist meant to lots of people in Ohio snake handlers or some other odd cult.
I knew better, but that was the stereotype or the association that was stuck in people's minds. The same can be said in regards to Calvinism. "If you are a Calvinist, that means you don't believe God cares for everybody; man is nothing more than a robot; you don't believe in prayer; you don't believe in evangelism; you don't believe in missions; you are strict and legalistic; you are following the teachings of one man, John Calvin; you relish theological arguments; you are divisive; you have cold, lifeless, highly liturgical worship services; you believe some new doctrine, etc., etc., etc." Again my quick reply is, "If that is what a Calvinist is, then count me out!" But that is not what Calvinists are or, maybe I should say, should be. If any who calls himself a Calvinist, but can be identified with the above descriptions, then he needs to have his head and soul examined. Those are the negative stereotypes, but they do not represent historical fact. That is why we must define the terms first, which I hope to do in coming articles.
Calvinism is simply a nickname. Some of us grew up with nicknames, and in some cases our nicknames become our names. We see a lot of that in the world of sports. When the volleyball teams, swimming teams, or basketball teams were competing in this summer's Olympics, we often heard the chant in the crowd from American flag-waving fans, "U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A." Not once did we hear, "United States of America, United States of America, United States of America." The reason is obvious. We can use, and I do use and prefer to use, other descriptive terms to describe what is meant by Calvinism, such as the doctrines of grace, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, or the sovereignty of God in salvation, but since human nature likes to keep things short and simple, people came up with the nickname "Calvinism".
John Calvin did not invent the doctrine, nor did he coin the nickname, so don't lay the blame at his feet. He was probably the one that best articulated the truths surrounding the salvation of sinners at a time when there was much doctrinal error in the church and at a time when God was raising up men to bring people back to the authority and sufficiency of God's Word. I follow no man. I don't carry a picture of John Calvin in my wallet, nor do I have a picture of him hanging on my wall at my home. I do not preach Calvinism; I preach Christ and Him crucified. There are other things that John Calvin believed that I would take issue with, but when it comes to the central issues of the salvation of sinners, he expressed what the New Testament seems to teach consistently.
Some might raise a good question at this point--"Why do we need labels in the first place? Doesn't the label Calvinist or Calvinism do more harm than good in the body of Christ?" I would tend to agree at one level, but when you stop to think about it, we live with labels every day of our lives. We have a can of Libby's corn in our pantry, we use Tide detergent, we rinse our mouths out with Scope, we wear Nike shoes, we drive a Ford to work, we shop at Wal-Mart, we bank at Chase, we eat at McDonald's, we root for the Cowboys, Sooners, Longhorns, Cornhuskers, Crimson Tide, Gators, Bulldogs, Wolverines, Trojans, Fighting Irish or whatever, we vote for Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we live on Elm Street, we go to a church that has a name or label attached to it, and the list goes on and on. I am a conservative Christian, and that's a label. I don't think any of us want all the stores to start ripping off all labels from their food and clothing products. Labels or names are just an inescapable part of life. I use "humdinger" and "hullabaloo" at the beginning of this article; if you don't know what those labels or names mean, then you are nothing but a young whipper snapper (another label or name).
When the Lord blessed us with daughter number four, who was born on my father's birthday and my birthday, my wife and I let our three older daughters name the child. They came up with the name Rose. We liked it, and we went with it. Although, jokingly, I did tell the girls there was another flower name I preferred, but Rose does sound better than Tulip. We have come up with cute nicknames for Rose, more or less a play on the name of Rose, like Rosie, but a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
The same goes for Tulip, the acronym that explains the five points of Calvinism. If one prefers a different label or term or word than Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. You would get no argument from me. For those who have received my articles for five plus years, one knows that I hardly ever use the word Calvinist or Calvinism. It does not come up in my sermons either. Since the "C" word is such a lightning rod word, and since it is so misunderstood, I shy away from mentioning it much of the time. Other words or terms will suffice, but a Tulip by any other name is still a Tulip.
In fact, I have probably never used the word Calvinist or Calvinism as much at anytime as I have in this article. The only reason I have done so here is because The John 3:16 Conference raises the issue, and it would be hard to address something without using the appropriate words so used. In coming articles on this doctrinal matter, the "C" word will fall by the wayside. My chief concern will be, "What does the Word of God say?"
Preliminary point number two before we launch into the five points will have to wait until another posting, but as I close this article, let me state something very emphatically. I refuse to let my blood pressure go through the roof over this issue. I have better things to do with my life than to get my stomach tied up in knots when people want to have a heated argument over these matters. My overarching goal in life is not to make everyone a Calvinist. I consider myself a fun-loving person, and I want to keep it that way. So, if you disagree with future postings on this subject, I will not lie awake at night wondering if you are really saved or not. Nor will I slug it out with you with email diatribes. Feel free to ask questions; in fact, I welcome them. Mental aerobics is good exercise. If the truth, any truth, can not stand up to any rigid examination, then how can it be the truth?
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Mr. Joseph Goes to Washington
In the 1939 classic movie, Mr. Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, goes to Washington and soon encounters a corrupt political system run by the good ol' boys network of career politicians. The no-nonsense, common sense common man Mr. Smith refuses to be tainted by the system and shows how one man with backbone and conviction can effect real positive change.
In the day when talk of a $700 billion financial bail-out is being debated in our nation's capital, it would be a nice thing if some no-nonsense common sense about billions and billions dollars worth of taxpayers' cents would surface among our career politicians, who seem to know very little about basic economics, the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly, the relevancy of God's holy Word on some issues that effect us all.
I do not pretend to know a whole lot about all the fine details behind this bail-out bill that is being voted upon in the U.S. House as I type this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that most of our elected leaders do not have the foggiest idea either. The current bill passed by the Senate is 451 pages long. How many Senators have actually read all the way through that novel? It is a reassuring thought, is it not, that most of our elected leaders vote on things they have no idea what they are voting on. One of the required readings before anyone is sworn into office should be Adam Smith's The Wealth of the Nations, the grandest explanation and defense of free capitalism that has ever been written.
I had a few courses in economics in college, and I quickly learned that when you have two or three modern economists in a room, there you will have four different opinions. I heard today on the radio that someone, tongue in cheek, has labelled the current bail-out bill as the Armageddon Avoidance Act. A large proportion of the American populace, and sadly a large number within the Christian community, seem to swallow hook, line and sinker the latest doomsday scenario that comes along. Even when big government is the cause of a problem, if big government can come along and present itself as the savior of the problem it has created, then once again we will be tempted to fall prostrate before Washington and give more homage to the federal god that has come to rescue us all. It is far more likely that cancer will be stamped out before idolatry will or can ever be.
Things may get bad in our economy, at our job, regarding our health, and everywhere else in our lives, but for believers in Christ, of all people, the word panic should not describe us at any time. Fear and anxiety are totally incompatible with trusting in a good, sovereign God.The only reason I can think of why many Christians seem to fall prey continuously to knee-jerk panic-mode prognostications is because the prognosticators know that there is money to be made at people's expense when people are quaking in their boots. Bad news always outsell the good news (gospel), even at religious bookstores.
All this came to a moment of sanctified serendipity last night when I read parts of Genesis 41 in our evening devotional time with my family. There the dreamy-eyed man Joseph in bondage in Egypt told sleep-deprived Pharaoh about a coming economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression. It was a sure word from the Lord, but no-nonsense common sense Mr. Joseph remained calm through it all with a solid trust in his God and was promoted to a very high-level cabinet position in the Egyptian government, where he served with honor and distinction.
Mr. Joseph proposed a 20% flat tax rate across the board. I could live with that, especially when all my taxes combined are over double that amount. Next he proposed that the government do not spend the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors, with apologies to drunken sailors, in the seven years of economic prosperity that was coming Egypt's way. Under Mr. Joseph's orders, the government set aside revenues to the government's treasury during the seven good years for the seven years of economic downturn that was coming around the bend. It was not really a Rainy Day Fund; it was more like a Famine Relief Fund.
As I told my daughters last night, this is basic Home Economics 101 or Government Economics 101. Don't spend more than you make, save a good amount of what you earn, don't live beyond your means, learn to practice contentment, expect financial emergencies or downturns and plan accordingly, don't try to rectify one financial headache with a bigger one, look to God and not your government to be your one and only Savior.
If our leaders in our nation's capital pictorially represent the vast conglomeration of American households, then that may explain largely why our nation's economic house is not in order. We are told that many Americans average $10,000 in credit card debt alone. Far too few homes know anything about the discipline of saving money. Their paycheck is spent before they cash it. In fact, it may be that to many S-A-V-E is a dirty four-letter word, when in truth, the dirty four-letter word should be D-E-B-T. How many Christian couples and families can't experience the joy of giving to the Lord and His work because they don't have much, if any, money left over after they pay all their indebtedness each month?
For those at Heartland, some of the above will be repeated in my upcoming sermon series on FAITH AND FINANCES, starting sometime in November. So I will stop now before I give it all away. I had to write something, though, on this subject since the events of the day and our family Bible reading all came together last night.
In the meantime, I can dream, like Joseph did on occasion, that someone like a Mr. Joseph could go to Washington and knock some sense in the heads of our elected leaders. But then again, maybe the best place to start is not in Washington, but in the homes of so many Americans in financial bondage all across our great land. If only Mr. Joseph could go there. We wouldn't have to make a movie about it. The Book would be enough.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
In the day when talk of a $700 billion financial bail-out is being debated in our nation's capital, it would be a nice thing if some no-nonsense common sense about billions and billions dollars worth of taxpayers' cents would surface among our career politicians, who seem to know very little about basic economics, the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly, the relevancy of God's holy Word on some issues that effect us all.
I do not pretend to know a whole lot about all the fine details behind this bail-out bill that is being voted upon in the U.S. House as I type this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that most of our elected leaders do not have the foggiest idea either. The current bill passed by the Senate is 451 pages long. How many Senators have actually read all the way through that novel? It is a reassuring thought, is it not, that most of our elected leaders vote on things they have no idea what they are voting on. One of the required readings before anyone is sworn into office should be Adam Smith's The Wealth of the Nations, the grandest explanation and defense of free capitalism that has ever been written.
I had a few courses in economics in college, and I quickly learned that when you have two or three modern economists in a room, there you will have four different opinions. I heard today on the radio that someone, tongue in cheek, has labelled the current bail-out bill as the Armageddon Avoidance Act. A large proportion of the American populace, and sadly a large number within the Christian community, seem to swallow hook, line and sinker the latest doomsday scenario that comes along. Even when big government is the cause of a problem, if big government can come along and present itself as the savior of the problem it has created, then once again we will be tempted to fall prostrate before Washington and give more homage to the federal god that has come to rescue us all. It is far more likely that cancer will be stamped out before idolatry will or can ever be.
Things may get bad in our economy, at our job, regarding our health, and everywhere else in our lives, but for believers in Christ, of all people, the word panic should not describe us at any time. Fear and anxiety are totally incompatible with trusting in a good, sovereign God.The only reason I can think of why many Christians seem to fall prey continuously to knee-jerk panic-mode prognostications is because the prognosticators know that there is money to be made at people's expense when people are quaking in their boots. Bad news always outsell the good news (gospel), even at religious bookstores.
All this came to a moment of sanctified serendipity last night when I read parts of Genesis 41 in our evening devotional time with my family. There the dreamy-eyed man Joseph in bondage in Egypt told sleep-deprived Pharaoh about a coming economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression. It was a sure word from the Lord, but no-nonsense common sense Mr. Joseph remained calm through it all with a solid trust in his God and was promoted to a very high-level cabinet position in the Egyptian government, where he served with honor and distinction.
Mr. Joseph proposed a 20% flat tax rate across the board. I could live with that, especially when all my taxes combined are over double that amount. Next he proposed that the government do not spend the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors, with apologies to drunken sailors, in the seven years of economic prosperity that was coming Egypt's way. Under Mr. Joseph's orders, the government set aside revenues to the government's treasury during the seven good years for the seven years of economic downturn that was coming around the bend. It was not really a Rainy Day Fund; it was more like a Famine Relief Fund.
As I told my daughters last night, this is basic Home Economics 101 or Government Economics 101. Don't spend more than you make, save a good amount of what you earn, don't live beyond your means, learn to practice contentment, expect financial emergencies or downturns and plan accordingly, don't try to rectify one financial headache with a bigger one, look to God and not your government to be your one and only Savior.
If our leaders in our nation's capital pictorially represent the vast conglomeration of American households, then that may explain largely why our nation's economic house is not in order. We are told that many Americans average $10,000 in credit card debt alone. Far too few homes know anything about the discipline of saving money. Their paycheck is spent before they cash it. In fact, it may be that to many S-A-V-E is a dirty four-letter word, when in truth, the dirty four-letter word should be D-E-B-T. How many Christian couples and families can't experience the joy of giving to the Lord and His work because they don't have much, if any, money left over after they pay all their indebtedness each month?
For those at Heartland, some of the above will be repeated in my upcoming sermon series on FAITH AND FINANCES, starting sometime in November. So I will stop now before I give it all away. I had to write something, though, on this subject since the events of the day and our family Bible reading all came together last night.
In the meantime, I can dream, like Joseph did on occasion, that someone like a Mr. Joseph could go to Washington and knock some sense in the heads of our elected leaders. But then again, maybe the best place to start is not in Washington, but in the homes of so many Americans in financial bondage all across our great land. If only Mr. Joseph could go there. We wouldn't have to make a movie about it. The Book would be enough.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Forgotten Birthday
Yesterday I turned 54. Last year I said I was 35 and dyslexic. This year I am 45 and dyslexic. I can't use that line next year, and especially the four years after that. It was also my youngest daughter's 11th birthday. On top of that, my daughter Rose and I were born on my father's birthday. I have a cousin in Texas who shares the same birthday.
My father served in WW2 in Europe. Once a buddy and he were separated from their outfit in France, and they spent the night with a farmer and his wife. My father was so overwhelmed by the farmer's generosity and hospitality that he told the farmer and his wife that when he got back to the States, if he and his wife were to have a daughter, they were going to name it Colette, in honor of the farmer and his wife's very young daughter. That is how my sister got her name. Of course, my sister, who may be crazier than I, loves to embellish the story. She tells others that this farmer and his wife also had on their farm a donkey named Chris.
Actually, my parents were content with their two children, Colette and Gail, but Gail died at sixteen months as the result of a freak accident. This left my mom in a state of deep depression. The doctor told my dad that the only way to get her out of that was for her to have another child. That is how I came on the scene. Years later, in my version of the story, my dad and mom decided to sue the doctor for medical malpractice.
As always, my family rolled out the red carpet for my daughter and me yesterday. Actually, I kind of wish that my birthday was forgotten, especially by AARP that has been sending me stuff in the mail for over a year now.
September 17 was another birthday too. It was the birthday of the United States Constitution. Our form of government is 221 years old. That's pretty amazing, when one considers that it is the world's longest-running experiment in self-rule. I wonder how many Americans remembered this birthday. I wonder how many government or civic classes in high schools across our land pointed out this birthday to their students. I don't recall reading anything about this birthday in our newspaper, nor do I recall hearing anything about it on the evening news. I wonder how many elected officials remembered this birthday. Judging by how many of our state and national elected leaders legislate, I think many of them have never read this important document in their entire lives. How many voters who will go to the polls this November will have read the Constitution at any time in their lives? What a shame that this birthday was been forgotten. Maybe this explains to a large degree why our country is in its current shape.
The summer of 1787 in Philadelphia was riveting. The men who met to draft a new form of government over a course of weeks and months knew that the Articles of Confederation, that guided the infant country through the War of Independence, were simply unworkable. Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts sounded alarm bells in the minds of leading Americans that something drastic had to be done. Winning independence from Britain, it turned out, was but the first step to becoming a nation. As John Adams had predicted, establishing a truly national government would be "the most intricate, the most important, the most dangerous and delicate business."
Four months after Americans marched into the mouths of cannon manned by other Americans, the Philadelphia Convention would meet to create a new national government. The current government under the Articles of Confederation had neither a consistent currency, nor a military force, nor the power to regulate trade, nor the power to levy taxes. Tensions ran extremely high during the summer of 1787. Large states were pitted against the small states. Slave-holding states were pitted against the non-slave holding states. Those who favored a much stronger central national government were pitted against those who revered states' rights. After all the dust had settled, after everyone had their say, and after all the labor pains that seemed would last forever, the United States Constitution was finally given birth. Our three branches of government with limited and defined powers have been at it now for over two centuries.
Not even Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Secretary of Treasury, would have approved our nation's recent action to bail out certain companies, some of which were a weird hybrid of federal and private companies. What the founding fathers feared has slowly developed over the years that our country today bears little resemblance to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The Scriptures speak of our "honoring the king". The closest thing we have to a king in our set-up is the Constitution. An encroaching and expanding form of government has become so customary and expected that many do not see anything wrong with it at all; in fact, they would see something terribly wrong if the government does not step more in our lives and solve all our problems. The idolatry that we encounter is not the worship by Israelites of Baal like we see in the Old Testament, but the the worship by Americans of Big Brother like we see from city halls to the halls of Congress. Should we be surprised that as more and more people demand more hand-outs from Washington that fewer and fewer people will look to the hands of a good God?
Our founding fathers, for the most part, were very religious men, who had a biblical worldview of things. They knew that there was a God who would supply all our need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19) They did not believe that there should be any Government that would supply all our need and wishes and whims according to the riches in the U.S. Treasury in the nation's capital. They sincerely believed that the government that governs least, governs best. They also came from a Calvinistic understanding of the nature of man; the different checks and balances imposed by the three branches of government were the result of their view of the total depravity of man.
Judges who legislate from the bench have usurped a role that never belonged to them. Then to make matters worst, they find things in the Constitution that are not there, such as a woman's right to choose murder over life. Yes, it would be grand and glorious thing if we were to return to our founding documents by actually reading them, understanding them, and implementing them. Presidents, senators, representatives, governors, judges, mayors, citizens, voters, you name them, would greatly benefit if they would just "honor the king". Can we turn this ship around in time? I hope and pray so.
Our Constitution is not perfect, though. That is why there are provisions for amendments. That is why we have the Bill of Rights. The framers never said it was perfect, but they had an in-built mechanism to right all wrongs over time. That is why there is an amendment for prohibition, and that didn't work, so there is a follow-up amendment to overturn the amendment on prohibition. That is why slavery was eventually stamped out, although it could have been done without so much bloodshed. (That is the subject of a another article down the road, maybe! Just think that the casualties from the war in Iraq account for less than 1% of the casualties from the War Between the States.)
Our nation has forgotten a very important birthday. We are worse off because of that.
Now I need to take off my civics 101 hat for a moment, and put on a similar hat that says it would be a grand and glorious thing also if we believers in Christ would also remember the founding document of our faith, God's Holy Word. That document is perfect; no amendments are needed. Just as government "has gotten too big for its britches", have our churches become the same way, all at the expense of forgetting what God's Word really says about things? As a Southern Baptist, I keep wishing and hoping and praying that more and more Southern Baptists would remember their original confessions of faith, hammered out by its founders in 1845.
It is nice to remember people's birthdays, but I for one would gladly give up all my future birthdays (I know this is not a great sacrifice on my part!) if I could live to see the day when other more important birthdays are fondly cherished and held in the highest esteem.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
My father served in WW2 in Europe. Once a buddy and he were separated from their outfit in France, and they spent the night with a farmer and his wife. My father was so overwhelmed by the farmer's generosity and hospitality that he told the farmer and his wife that when he got back to the States, if he and his wife were to have a daughter, they were going to name it Colette, in honor of the farmer and his wife's very young daughter. That is how my sister got her name. Of course, my sister, who may be crazier than I, loves to embellish the story. She tells others that this farmer and his wife also had on their farm a donkey named Chris.
Actually, my parents were content with their two children, Colette and Gail, but Gail died at sixteen months as the result of a freak accident. This left my mom in a state of deep depression. The doctor told my dad that the only way to get her out of that was for her to have another child. That is how I came on the scene. Years later, in my version of the story, my dad and mom decided to sue the doctor for medical malpractice.
As always, my family rolled out the red carpet for my daughter and me yesterday. Actually, I kind of wish that my birthday was forgotten, especially by AARP that has been sending me stuff in the mail for over a year now.
September 17 was another birthday too. It was the birthday of the United States Constitution. Our form of government is 221 years old. That's pretty amazing, when one considers that it is the world's longest-running experiment in self-rule. I wonder how many Americans remembered this birthday. I wonder how many government or civic classes in high schools across our land pointed out this birthday to their students. I don't recall reading anything about this birthday in our newspaper, nor do I recall hearing anything about it on the evening news. I wonder how many elected officials remembered this birthday. Judging by how many of our state and national elected leaders legislate, I think many of them have never read this important document in their entire lives. How many voters who will go to the polls this November will have read the Constitution at any time in their lives? What a shame that this birthday was been forgotten. Maybe this explains to a large degree why our country is in its current shape.
The summer of 1787 in Philadelphia was riveting. The men who met to draft a new form of government over a course of weeks and months knew that the Articles of Confederation, that guided the infant country through the War of Independence, were simply unworkable. Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts sounded alarm bells in the minds of leading Americans that something drastic had to be done. Winning independence from Britain, it turned out, was but the first step to becoming a nation. As John Adams had predicted, establishing a truly national government would be "the most intricate, the most important, the most dangerous and delicate business."
Four months after Americans marched into the mouths of cannon manned by other Americans, the Philadelphia Convention would meet to create a new national government. The current government under the Articles of Confederation had neither a consistent currency, nor a military force, nor the power to regulate trade, nor the power to levy taxes. Tensions ran extremely high during the summer of 1787. Large states were pitted against the small states. Slave-holding states were pitted against the non-slave holding states. Those who favored a much stronger central national government were pitted against those who revered states' rights. After all the dust had settled, after everyone had their say, and after all the labor pains that seemed would last forever, the United States Constitution was finally given birth. Our three branches of government with limited and defined powers have been at it now for over two centuries.
Not even Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Secretary of Treasury, would have approved our nation's recent action to bail out certain companies, some of which were a weird hybrid of federal and private companies. What the founding fathers feared has slowly developed over the years that our country today bears little resemblance to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The Scriptures speak of our "honoring the king". The closest thing we have to a king in our set-up is the Constitution. An encroaching and expanding form of government has become so customary and expected that many do not see anything wrong with it at all; in fact, they would see something terribly wrong if the government does not step more in our lives and solve all our problems. The idolatry that we encounter is not the worship by Israelites of Baal like we see in the Old Testament, but the the worship by Americans of Big Brother like we see from city halls to the halls of Congress. Should we be surprised that as more and more people demand more hand-outs from Washington that fewer and fewer people will look to the hands of a good God?
Our founding fathers, for the most part, were very religious men, who had a biblical worldview of things. They knew that there was a God who would supply all our need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19) They did not believe that there should be any Government that would supply all our need and wishes and whims according to the riches in the U.S. Treasury in the nation's capital. They sincerely believed that the government that governs least, governs best. They also came from a Calvinistic understanding of the nature of man; the different checks and balances imposed by the three branches of government were the result of their view of the total depravity of man.
Judges who legislate from the bench have usurped a role that never belonged to them. Then to make matters worst, they find things in the Constitution that are not there, such as a woman's right to choose murder over life. Yes, it would be grand and glorious thing if we were to return to our founding documents by actually reading them, understanding them, and implementing them. Presidents, senators, representatives, governors, judges, mayors, citizens, voters, you name them, would greatly benefit if they would just "honor the king". Can we turn this ship around in time? I hope and pray so.
Our Constitution is not perfect, though. That is why there are provisions for amendments. That is why we have the Bill of Rights. The framers never said it was perfect, but they had an in-built mechanism to right all wrongs over time. That is why there is an amendment for prohibition, and that didn't work, so there is a follow-up amendment to overturn the amendment on prohibition. That is why slavery was eventually stamped out, although it could have been done without so much bloodshed. (That is the subject of a another article down the road, maybe! Just think that the casualties from the war in Iraq account for less than 1% of the casualties from the War Between the States.)
Our nation has forgotten a very important birthday. We are worse off because of that.
Now I need to take off my civics 101 hat for a moment, and put on a similar hat that says it would be a grand and glorious thing also if we believers in Christ would also remember the founding document of our faith, God's Holy Word. That document is perfect; no amendments are needed. Just as government "has gotten too big for its britches", have our churches become the same way, all at the expense of forgetting what God's Word really says about things? As a Southern Baptist, I keep wishing and hoping and praying that more and more Southern Baptists would remember their original confessions of faith, hammered out by its founders in 1845.
It is nice to remember people's birthdays, but I for one would gladly give up all my future birthdays (I know this is not a great sacrifice on my part!) if I could live to see the day when other more important birthdays are fondly cherished and held in the highest esteem.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Five Years and Counting
At the urging of many friends in the summer of 2003, I began to explore the possibility of starting a church in Oklahoma City. As I shared this idea with a pastor friend, Vance Martin, he began to share that same desire and burden. So the second Sunday in September of that year, not knowing how we were going to do it or if it would ever get off the ground, Heartland Baptist Church of Oklahoma City had its first worship service in a downstairs conference room at the Hilton Hotel on NW Expressway. This makes this coming Sunday our fifth anniversary since we began as a church. Next month will mark our first anniversary in the sense we constituted as a church with an official membership list.
It's hard to believe that I have gone full circle. In 1981 my wife and I loaded all our belongings in a Jartran rental truck and upon graduation from seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas, we moved to north of Detroit, Michigan, to pastor in the start of a new church. We left Texas on January 2 in 75 degree weather. We arrived in Detroit on January 4 with the temperature at minus 12 and about a foot of snow on the ground. When some would ask me later if I ever had any second thoughts if I had done the right thing, I would say "yes", and all those thoughts occurred on January 4, 1981.
Now at middle age I have come back to where I began. The unwritten, but often assumed, process for a pastor is to start small and work oneself up the ladder to pastor bigger, more established churches as one gets older toward the retirement years. There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but for me, I could never be satisfied with having just a maintenance ministry at some place, even if the salary package was tempting. I need challenges, or I shrivel up on the inside.
There are naturally a lot of advantages that come with pastoring at a larger, more traditional church setting. For me and how I am wired, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and I always have preferred the idea of starting a church from scratch. It is definitely not easy at times, but the rewards more than make up for the tough, lean times.
In the summer of 2003 before we had our first worship service, among the many things I did to prepare myself for this new church start, was to read John Piper's book, DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE. If I ever had any doubts about starting a church at middle age, those doubts were completely erased after reading that book. God used that book to help me see that by living a comfortable, predictable Christian life would be a total waste. It is easy for Christians to fall into a rut where their faith is never stretched and where their walk is never bumpy. My flesh would much rather take up my cushion to follow Jesus, rather than to take up my cross and follow Jesus. As Vance Havner was fond of saying along these lines, "Get out on a limb. That is where all the fruit is anyway." It would be so much invigorating for more Christians if in their spiritual journey they would get out on a limb more.
Alex and Brett Harris, 19-year-old twin authors, say in their increasingly popular book, DO HARD THINGS, that teens are hungry for challenges, far more than they are given credit for. They define hard things as those that: take one outside one's comfort zone, go beyond what is expected and required, are too big to accomplish alone, don't earn an immediate payoff, and challenge the cultural norms. Perhaps more teens would attempt to do hard things if they were to see more adults attempt to do hard things.
A wise pastor in Michigan who became my mentor, who gets these email devotionals by the way, told me a couple of things in his counsel back in 1981 that has stuck with me to this day. One is that I should not be surprised if the people we end up with in a church start situation would be a completely different group than the group we started out with on day one. The other thing he told me is that it takes a special type of Christian--not meaning they were more holy or more spiritual--to be a part of a new church situation. For that person, he has to be willing to give up a lot of customary church amenities, like not having many organized programs or activities for their children, or like not having a church choir or top-notch music ministry, or like not having one's own church building, or like not having a paid church staff, or like living on a church budget shoestring. The real "heroes" of a new church start, from my way of looking at things, is not the pastor or pastors involved, but the faithful, steady, committed group of folks who make up the body of a new church start. Bro. Vance and I feel very privileged to be surrounded by a great bunch of loving heroes each Lord's Day.
All this brings me to what has prompted me to write these articles from week to week. I looked around and saw that a lot of churches spend a lot of advertising dollars on making their church known by highlighting its special attractions that might appeal to folks. A new church does not have a lot of money to spend on advertising dollars, but email sure is affordable. Secondly, I have always had a problem with standard operating procedures where churches try to put their best foot forward. "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips." (Proverbs 27:2)
I send out emails regularly to our own church members that detail about things that are happening in our church, but I wanted to send out something else to a much wider audience that has more to deal with eternal truths rather than giving a plug about our church. Our church and your church may or may not be around in five more years, but God's Word "abideth still." What is sorely lacking in a lot of church literature is anything of biblical substance. Regardless if a person comes to our church or not, I want through my writing and all our church literature to teach truths that are life-changing and that will be around forever, for "to say something relevant, one must say something that is eternal."
So in another five years, if the Lord wills it, I may write another blog similar to this one, but until then, I want to get back to what I love best, and that is the communication of those things that are eternally relevant.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
P.S. I just dawned on me as I finish this before dawn on Sept. 11, that seven years ago today when our country was attacked, I was getting ready to leave home in Crescent to drive to Del City for a pastors' fellowship that was meeting at a church where Vance Martin was the pastor. Little did we know then the plans the Lord would have for us together almost two years later to the day.
It's hard to believe that I have gone full circle. In 1981 my wife and I loaded all our belongings in a Jartran rental truck and upon graduation from seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas, we moved to north of Detroit, Michigan, to pastor in the start of a new church. We left Texas on January 2 in 75 degree weather. We arrived in Detroit on January 4 with the temperature at minus 12 and about a foot of snow on the ground. When some would ask me later if I ever had any second thoughts if I had done the right thing, I would say "yes", and all those thoughts occurred on January 4, 1981.
Now at middle age I have come back to where I began. The unwritten, but often assumed, process for a pastor is to start small and work oneself up the ladder to pastor bigger, more established churches as one gets older toward the retirement years. There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but for me, I could never be satisfied with having just a maintenance ministry at some place, even if the salary package was tempting. I need challenges, or I shrivel up on the inside.
There are naturally a lot of advantages that come with pastoring at a larger, more traditional church setting. For me and how I am wired, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and I always have preferred the idea of starting a church from scratch. It is definitely not easy at times, but the rewards more than make up for the tough, lean times.
In the summer of 2003 before we had our first worship service, among the many things I did to prepare myself for this new church start, was to read John Piper's book, DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE. If I ever had any doubts about starting a church at middle age, those doubts were completely erased after reading that book. God used that book to help me see that by living a comfortable, predictable Christian life would be a total waste. It is easy for Christians to fall into a rut where their faith is never stretched and where their walk is never bumpy. My flesh would much rather take up my cushion to follow Jesus, rather than to take up my cross and follow Jesus. As Vance Havner was fond of saying along these lines, "Get out on a limb. That is where all the fruit is anyway." It would be so much invigorating for more Christians if in their spiritual journey they would get out on a limb more.
Alex and Brett Harris, 19-year-old twin authors, say in their increasingly popular book, DO HARD THINGS, that teens are hungry for challenges, far more than they are given credit for. They define hard things as those that: take one outside one's comfort zone, go beyond what is expected and required, are too big to accomplish alone, don't earn an immediate payoff, and challenge the cultural norms. Perhaps more teens would attempt to do hard things if they were to see more adults attempt to do hard things.
A wise pastor in Michigan who became my mentor, who gets these email devotionals by the way, told me a couple of things in his counsel back in 1981 that has stuck with me to this day. One is that I should not be surprised if the people we end up with in a church start situation would be a completely different group than the group we started out with on day one. The other thing he told me is that it takes a special type of Christian--not meaning they were more holy or more spiritual--to be a part of a new church situation. For that person, he has to be willing to give up a lot of customary church amenities, like not having many organized programs or activities for their children, or like not having a church choir or top-notch music ministry, or like not having one's own church building, or like not having a paid church staff, or like living on a church budget shoestring. The real "heroes" of a new church start, from my way of looking at things, is not the pastor or pastors involved, but the faithful, steady, committed group of folks who make up the body of a new church start. Bro. Vance and I feel very privileged to be surrounded by a great bunch of loving heroes each Lord's Day.
All this brings me to what has prompted me to write these articles from week to week. I looked around and saw that a lot of churches spend a lot of advertising dollars on making their church known by highlighting its special attractions that might appeal to folks. A new church does not have a lot of money to spend on advertising dollars, but email sure is affordable. Secondly, I have always had a problem with standard operating procedures where churches try to put their best foot forward. "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips." (Proverbs 27:2)
I send out emails regularly to our own church members that detail about things that are happening in our church, but I wanted to send out something else to a much wider audience that has more to deal with eternal truths rather than giving a plug about our church. Our church and your church may or may not be around in five more years, but God's Word "abideth still." What is sorely lacking in a lot of church literature is anything of biblical substance. Regardless if a person comes to our church or not, I want through my writing and all our church literature to teach truths that are life-changing and that will be around forever, for "to say something relevant, one must say something that is eternal."
So in another five years, if the Lord wills it, I may write another blog similar to this one, but until then, I want to get back to what I love best, and that is the communication of those things that are eternally relevant.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
P.S. I just dawned on me as I finish this before dawn on Sept. 11, that seven years ago today when our country was attacked, I was getting ready to leave home in Crescent to drive to Del City for a pastors' fellowship that was meeting at a church where Vance Martin was the pastor. Little did we know then the plans the Lord would have for us together almost two years later to the day.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Do Christians Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they do)?
In all my previous articles, the attention has been on unbelievers and their inborn, God-given inclinations to believe in an afterlife and even a lasting place of deserved justice called hell, no matter how strenuous their vocal political correctness may say otherwise. God truly has put eternity in the hearts of men, so that means all the arguments for hell previously made come straight from heaven. With all that being said, one would naturally think that Christians and churches would capitalize on these arguments plus the more sure-footed argument from the authority of God's Word on the subject. One would think that we would not be timid or tepid when we approach this subject. Consider the few following observations:
1. The Old Testament speaks about God's wrath some 600 times, and it uses 20 different Hebrew words to do so.
2. The New Testament speaks about God's wrath too, and its teaching is more terrible and frightening. In the Old Testament God's wrath is largely confined to acts of temporal punishment upon obstinate, disobedient people. In the New Testament the emphasis shifts very strongly toward eternal punishment.
3. There is more written in biblical revelation about His anger than His love.
4. Of the 1870 verses from the lips of Jesus, 13% are about judgment and hell.
5. Of the 40 parables that Jesus tells, over one half relate to eternal judgment.
6. Of the twelve times that "Gehenna" (hell) is mentioned in the New Testament, 11 of them come from Jesus Himself.
7. For those who want only the Ethical Teacher/Pacifist Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount have to wrestle with what this Jesus says in His straight talk express from that Sermon, such as warning people of "the fire of hell" (Matthew 5:22), the danger of being "thrown into hell" (Matthew 5:29), and the need to turn from "the road that leads to destruction." (Matthew 7:13)
So much so for the idea that we have an angry, vindictive "God" of the Old Testament, and we have a nicer, kinder "Jesus" of the New Testament. God does not have a split personality, nor has He mellowed over time. He is the same loving, sin-hating, holy God of the New Testament as He is in the Old Testament. Our God changes not, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
For several Sundays in our Sunday morning Bible study time at our church, we looked at the far-reaching wide biblical teaching on eternal judgment from the three "hell" words, which are Sheol, Hades and Gehenna. Many Christians may not be aware of the shades of difference among those three words and what immediately transpires after one's death and at the future end-time judgment before God. (Surely that can not be because we have been derelict in teaching on the subject, or that we would dare tip-toe around such harsh-sounding, non-seeker-sensitive language, right? or not right?)
At one time I thought I would spend some time in these articles in going over what we covered on Sundays, but I decided to go in a different direction. If I just barely touched upon a twentieth of what we covered on Sundays and of what the Bible teaches on the matter of eternal judgment, then if you think these articles are too long now with too many continuing parts, then you would not know what to think of I just sent a rough outline on the doctrine of hell. This teaching is not hidden in some obscure passages in 3 Chronicles or Hezekiah. It is there for all pastors, youth ministers, Sunday School teachers, elders, deacons, evangelists, Bible college instructors and seminary professors to find for themselves and to teach it to others under their care. It is there for every Christian to find for himself, even when others avoid it like the plague.
So the question is no longer along the lines of whether people in general really believe in hell, even when they say they don't, but the question has to be with all this biblical data at our fingertips is whether Christians really believe in hell, even when they say they do. Silence on the subject speaks volumes. If judgment begins with the household of God, then we could narrow that down and say that judgment begins with the household of God on its silence on the judgment of God.
Brian McLaren is a name you need to familiarize yourself with these days. He is pastor, speaker, author and leader in the so-called Emergent Church Movement, which takes the Seeker-Sensitive and Purpose-Driven model a step further. He is a bosom buddy of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels and has spoken at their respective churches on numerous occasions. Both Warren and Hybels praise McLaren to no end.
Recently at Hybels' church in South Barrington, Illinois, McLaren said that many of our traditional doctrines need some serious revision. He wrote about such things in his 2007 book, "Everything Must Change", in which he argues that the doctrine of hell needs radical rethinking, because people who believe in hell may be inclined to dominate and take advantage of other people rather than help them. If we quickly pass off McLaren as some sort of nut job out in left field all by himself, then we greatly underestimate his wide influence in evangelical circles. When McLaren speaks, it may surprise us who is listening, even at churches here in the Bible Belt of America.
I know of a great many Christians who will vigorously nod their heads in agreement when asked if they believe in the sovereignty of God, but when the matter is pressed all the way to the salvation of sinners, then somehow God loses a significant part of His sovereignty. I know of a great many Christians who will vigorously nod their heads in agreement when asked if they believe in an eternal hell, but when the matter is pressed all the way to defining who actually goes to hell forever and why, then somehow the population of hell decreases to a trickle. Do today's Christians really believe in hell, even when they say they do?
Why would a good, loving God send people to hell, though? The answer is that God does not send people to hell. He sends sinners to hell. Furthermore, if we reject the Bible's teaching on hell, how can we trust its teaching on the mercy of God, the gift of forgiveness, and the hope of eternal life? Pretty soon then, I will have to do a follow-up series on "DO CHRISTIANS REALLY BELIEVE IN HEAVEN, even when they say they do?"
Yours in Christ,
Chris
1. The Old Testament speaks about God's wrath some 600 times, and it uses 20 different Hebrew words to do so.
2. The New Testament speaks about God's wrath too, and its teaching is more terrible and frightening. In the Old Testament God's wrath is largely confined to acts of temporal punishment upon obstinate, disobedient people. In the New Testament the emphasis shifts very strongly toward eternal punishment.
3. There is more written in biblical revelation about His anger than His love.
4. Of the 1870 verses from the lips of Jesus, 13% are about judgment and hell.
5. Of the 40 parables that Jesus tells, over one half relate to eternal judgment.
6. Of the twelve times that "Gehenna" (hell) is mentioned in the New Testament, 11 of them come from Jesus Himself.
7. For those who want only the Ethical Teacher/Pacifist Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount have to wrestle with what this Jesus says in His straight talk express from that Sermon, such as warning people of "the fire of hell" (Matthew 5:22), the danger of being "thrown into hell" (Matthew 5:29), and the need to turn from "the road that leads to destruction." (Matthew 7:13)
So much so for the idea that we have an angry, vindictive "God" of the Old Testament, and we have a nicer, kinder "Jesus" of the New Testament. God does not have a split personality, nor has He mellowed over time. He is the same loving, sin-hating, holy God of the New Testament as He is in the Old Testament. Our God changes not, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
For several Sundays in our Sunday morning Bible study time at our church, we looked at the far-reaching wide biblical teaching on eternal judgment from the three "hell" words, which are Sheol, Hades and Gehenna. Many Christians may not be aware of the shades of difference among those three words and what immediately transpires after one's death and at the future end-time judgment before God. (Surely that can not be because we have been derelict in teaching on the subject, or that we would dare tip-toe around such harsh-sounding, non-seeker-sensitive language, right? or not right?)
At one time I thought I would spend some time in these articles in going over what we covered on Sundays, but I decided to go in a different direction. If I just barely touched upon a twentieth of what we covered on Sundays and of what the Bible teaches on the matter of eternal judgment, then if you think these articles are too long now with too many continuing parts, then you would not know what to think of I just sent a rough outline on the doctrine of hell. This teaching is not hidden in some obscure passages in 3 Chronicles or Hezekiah. It is there for all pastors, youth ministers, Sunday School teachers, elders, deacons, evangelists, Bible college instructors and seminary professors to find for themselves and to teach it to others under their care. It is there for every Christian to find for himself, even when others avoid it like the plague.
So the question is no longer along the lines of whether people in general really believe in hell, even when they say they don't, but the question has to be with all this biblical data at our fingertips is whether Christians really believe in hell, even when they say they do. Silence on the subject speaks volumes. If judgment begins with the household of God, then we could narrow that down and say that judgment begins with the household of God on its silence on the judgment of God.
Brian McLaren is a name you need to familiarize yourself with these days. He is pastor, speaker, author and leader in the so-called Emergent Church Movement, which takes the Seeker-Sensitive and Purpose-Driven model a step further. He is a bosom buddy of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels and has spoken at their respective churches on numerous occasions. Both Warren and Hybels praise McLaren to no end.
Recently at Hybels' church in South Barrington, Illinois, McLaren said that many of our traditional doctrines need some serious revision. He wrote about such things in his 2007 book, "Everything Must Change", in which he argues that the doctrine of hell needs radical rethinking, because people who believe in hell may be inclined to dominate and take advantage of other people rather than help them. If we quickly pass off McLaren as some sort of nut job out in left field all by himself, then we greatly underestimate his wide influence in evangelical circles. When McLaren speaks, it may surprise us who is listening, even at churches here in the Bible Belt of America.
I know of a great many Christians who will vigorously nod their heads in agreement when asked if they believe in the sovereignty of God, but when the matter is pressed all the way to the salvation of sinners, then somehow God loses a significant part of His sovereignty. I know of a great many Christians who will vigorously nod their heads in agreement when asked if they believe in an eternal hell, but when the matter is pressed all the way to defining who actually goes to hell forever and why, then somehow the population of hell decreases to a trickle. Do today's Christians really believe in hell, even when they say they do?
Why would a good, loving God send people to hell, though? The answer is that God does not send people to hell. He sends sinners to hell. Furthermore, if we reject the Bible's teaching on hell, how can we trust its teaching on the mercy of God, the gift of forgiveness, and the hope of eternal life? Pretty soon then, I will have to do a follow-up series on "DO CHRISTIANS REALLY BELIEVE IN HEAVEN, even when they say they do?"
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Why People Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part V
What time is it? Where does the time go? Time flies when you are having fun. I simply don't have the time for that. It seemed like only yesterday. . .or, That seems such a long time ago. Time is running out.
Retired people in Michigan and Ohio would get their RVs packed, ready to escape the winter of the cold north and head to their winter homes in Florida. There is nothing wrong with that. There were many a winter I spent in Michigan and Ohio that I wished I could have hitched a ride with them. Something, though, was very telling when I watched older people who were unprepared for eternity try to squeeze as many activities, traveling, and recreation as they possibly could in their waning remaining years. For them, this life was it, and time was about to run out, so naturally, they had to get in as much as possible before the last grain of sand slipped through their own hourglass.
Our obsession with time only demonstrates that we were made more than just for time. This argument from time is an inescapable conclusion from the boundaries that are placed upon every member of the human race. The mortality rate is the same the world over--one death per person. From a human perspective we might be able to extend the quantity of the years of our lives and the quality of our lives if we do certain things to improve our health and well-being. Botox and plastic surgeries can only hide the inevitable. For every one of us, time is running out.
The Preacher of Ecclesiastes said there is a time for everything under the sun, including a time to be born and a time to die. On nearly every headstone at every cemetery, there are two prominent dates. One is the date of one's birth, and the other is the date of one's death. In between those two dates is a dash. That about sums up our lives--a dash. It all goes by so quickly. Maybe it is more like a mad dash. As the great theologian Lily Tomlin was fond of saying, "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Or as someone else was quoted as saying, "What a tragedy it would be if you were to climb the ladder of success in this life all the way to the top only to discover too late that the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall."
That is why we find the apostle Paul in Ephesians telling us that we must redeem the time. We need to snatch up every possible moment in this life, because time is passing us all by. I think about some Christians that are wasting some precious time they may never recapture. They have so drifted from the Lord, they are out of fellowship with other believers, and their children at home are not being trained in the Lord as they should. More than just time will catch up with them, if they keep squandering the time given to them. I can't count the number of times when a Joe and Flo Doe came to me about all the problems they were having with their teenage son Bo, and they wanted a quick fix from me to make up for a lifetime of neglect and regrets.
In grief counseling we often hear that "time heals all wounds." To the grief caused by our own waywardness, these self-imposed wounds are only exposed more and more as time goes by. "Behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation." You heard about the guy who bought a book on procrastination, but he never got around to read it. Tomorrow truly never comes, especially if we spend time like the U.S. Congress spends our tax dollars.
From the workaholics to the pleasure-seekers to the busybodies to the party-goers to the lazy to the drifters, every man has a fixation with time, in one way or another. Everything man does with his time only screams at us that we are more than just animals who wear a Rolex. Why is that man has to try to pack in as much work or fun as possible in as little time as possible? Why does life resemble for so many people a mad dash rather than a pleasant walk? Why do we all sadly complain that we don't have enough time to do all the things that "have to be done"?
Man was made for more than just time. "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end." (Eccl. 3:11) God always shows up on time. He will not allow us to take a peek into His daily or eternal planner. What He has done, though, is program within every beating heart a longing to have more than time in this life can provide. Eternity is stamped into our very being. Depraved man can deny it only for so long and try to cover it up with a lifetime of this worldly pursuits, but it can not be deprogrammed by any of man's clever ploys. We were made to live forever. There is something beyond that last date on the headstone.
Larry King was once asked when he faced near death due to his heart problems and surgeries if he ever gave any thought to matters of eternity, his soul and the afterlife. His reply was a cool and resolute, "No." I do not doubt Larry King's words, but in the quiet recesses of his mind when the camera and the microphone are nowhere present, I have to wonder if there are not many moments when Larry King, like everyone else, has that awful realization that time is quickly running out for him. Then what?
People really believe in heaven, and they really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. Time will only tell that to be true.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Retired people in Michigan and Ohio would get their RVs packed, ready to escape the winter of the cold north and head to their winter homes in Florida. There is nothing wrong with that. There were many a winter I spent in Michigan and Ohio that I wished I could have hitched a ride with them. Something, though, was very telling when I watched older people who were unprepared for eternity try to squeeze as many activities, traveling, and recreation as they possibly could in their waning remaining years. For them, this life was it, and time was about to run out, so naturally, they had to get in as much as possible before the last grain of sand slipped through their own hourglass.
Our obsession with time only demonstrates that we were made more than just for time. This argument from time is an inescapable conclusion from the boundaries that are placed upon every member of the human race. The mortality rate is the same the world over--one death per person. From a human perspective we might be able to extend the quantity of the years of our lives and the quality of our lives if we do certain things to improve our health and well-being. Botox and plastic surgeries can only hide the inevitable. For every one of us, time is running out.
The Preacher of Ecclesiastes said there is a time for everything under the sun, including a time to be born and a time to die. On nearly every headstone at every cemetery, there are two prominent dates. One is the date of one's birth, and the other is the date of one's death. In between those two dates is a dash. That about sums up our lives--a dash. It all goes by so quickly. Maybe it is more like a mad dash. As the great theologian Lily Tomlin was fond of saying, "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Or as someone else was quoted as saying, "What a tragedy it would be if you were to climb the ladder of success in this life all the way to the top only to discover too late that the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall."
That is why we find the apostle Paul in Ephesians telling us that we must redeem the time. We need to snatch up every possible moment in this life, because time is passing us all by. I think about some Christians that are wasting some precious time they may never recapture. They have so drifted from the Lord, they are out of fellowship with other believers, and their children at home are not being trained in the Lord as they should. More than just time will catch up with them, if they keep squandering the time given to them. I can't count the number of times when a Joe and Flo Doe came to me about all the problems they were having with their teenage son Bo, and they wanted a quick fix from me to make up for a lifetime of neglect and regrets.
In grief counseling we often hear that "time heals all wounds." To the grief caused by our own waywardness, these self-imposed wounds are only exposed more and more as time goes by. "Behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation." You heard about the guy who bought a book on procrastination, but he never got around to read it. Tomorrow truly never comes, especially if we spend time like the U.S. Congress spends our tax dollars.
From the workaholics to the pleasure-seekers to the busybodies to the party-goers to the lazy to the drifters, every man has a fixation with time, in one way or another. Everything man does with his time only screams at us that we are more than just animals who wear a Rolex. Why is that man has to try to pack in as much work or fun as possible in as little time as possible? Why does life resemble for so many people a mad dash rather than a pleasant walk? Why do we all sadly complain that we don't have enough time to do all the things that "have to be done"?
Man was made for more than just time. "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end." (Eccl. 3:11) God always shows up on time. He will not allow us to take a peek into His daily or eternal planner. What He has done, though, is program within every beating heart a longing to have more than time in this life can provide. Eternity is stamped into our very being. Depraved man can deny it only for so long and try to cover it up with a lifetime of this worldly pursuits, but it can not be deprogrammed by any of man's clever ploys. We were made to live forever. There is something beyond that last date on the headstone.
Larry King was once asked when he faced near death due to his heart problems and surgeries if he ever gave any thought to matters of eternity, his soul and the afterlife. His reply was a cool and resolute, "No." I do not doubt Larry King's words, but in the quiet recesses of his mind when the camera and the microphone are nowhere present, I have to wonder if there are not many moments when Larry King, like everyone else, has that awful realization that time is quickly running out for him. Then what?
People really believe in heaven, and they really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. Time will only tell that to be true.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Why People Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part IV
The opening ceremony to this year's Olympics in Beijing, China, was both spectacular and chilling. For visual effect alone, it probably excelled every opening ceremony in the history of the Olympics. The more I thought about it the next day, though, there was something deeply troubling about what I saw the night before. Sure, everything was done in sync (of course, some was done in lip sync!), everything was perfectly orchestrated, everything was superb in its overall presentation, but all of that bothered me too. Atheistic communism does not recognize the individual dignity and worth of a human being; the state is what matters most. Humans are there to serve the state, and individual expression (i.e., the Cultural Revolution) must be suppressed, so that every person must be squeezed into a totalitarian mold. What we saw at the opening ceremony was state sameness with every person dressing exactly alike, looking exactly alike, acting exactly alike, all working together in perfect tandem. . .or else. Such is exactly what we get when God is denied.
Another defining argument for the existence of hell--even when technologically advanced man says it wants to get rid of all remnants of the Christian myth--is the argument from human dignity. Previous arguments, from history, from language, from evolution, and from justice, really all stem from this argument concerning the individual worth of the human. Why does history only confirm that all civilizations around the world have been shown to hold to some sort of a belief in an afterlife? Why does our language give us away that we really believe in an awful place where we can wish people to go? Why does the current unrest within the ranks of honest evolutionists leave us with a trip to life out there beyond life on this planet? Why do we scream for justice in this life, and why are we terribly annoyed when injustice seems to have the upper hand?
It all can be traced back to how we instinctly feel about ourselves. Man has always had s self-conscious sense of the special worth and dignity of the human race. This lies behind all our humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, care for the sick, alleviate suffering when we can, give monetary aid to non-profit organizations, send relief teams around the world when disasters hit, and thousands more kindnesses to man in need. When someone raises the issue about "man's inhumanity toward man", that only feeds the idea that man normally should be humane toward man.
Why is it that given the choice between saving a dog in a house fire and a small child, that everyone will opt for saving the child without having to deliberate over the matter for one second? That really does not make much sense if man is nothing more than a cog or two ahead of canines in the first place. As much as a particular brand of scientific propaganda wants us to believe that man is not that special at all, every move we make in life only confirms the opposite, that is, man has unequalled worth and dignity. People can talk all they want to about saving whales or saving the planet, in the real world where people live, we believe and act that nothing comes close to the lives of humans, even if they are total strangers.
Go to a school, hospital or special care institution, and look over how badly disabled children are treated, as they sometimes have to be strapped into mechanized high chairs. Examine how carefully trained teachers or nurses tend to their needs with amazing devotion, patience and attention. See how much money is spent for their welfare on a daily basis. If man has no intrinsic value far above everything else in existence, then why do we bother to go to such a huge outlay of money, manpower and energy to people who will likely not make much contribution to society? Wouldn't it seem to make more economic sense that we quietly exterminate them and then focus on projects that would yield some return? The only possible answer why we don't do this, even though we do exterminate babies in the womb, is because man can not get away from the fact that man has dignity, no matter what his mental or physical condition is.
Because man has dignity and worth, it is only a small step forward to say that man has more going on for him than just this life. People will say in surveys that they more readily believe in a heaven-like existence than they would a hell-like existence, but surveys don't tell the whole story. Because man is special, and when we see or read about the cruel, inhumane treatment of our fellow man, like disabled children who may be abused in an institution, we conjure up in our minds a hell-like place where those who are guilty should be assigned.
One argument remains, and while I am having some lighthearted fun with all this, all these arguments added together do not come close to the weight of Scripture on the subject. I intend to save the best for last in that regard. But for now, taking these arguments together, W.G.T. Shedd's memorable words ring out loud and clear, "If there were no hell in Scripture, we should be compelled to invent one."
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Another defining argument for the existence of hell--even when technologically advanced man says it wants to get rid of all remnants of the Christian myth--is the argument from human dignity. Previous arguments, from history, from language, from evolution, and from justice, really all stem from this argument concerning the individual worth of the human. Why does history only confirm that all civilizations around the world have been shown to hold to some sort of a belief in an afterlife? Why does our language give us away that we really believe in an awful place where we can wish people to go? Why does the current unrest within the ranks of honest evolutionists leave us with a trip to life out there beyond life on this planet? Why do we scream for justice in this life, and why are we terribly annoyed when injustice seems to have the upper hand?
It all can be traced back to how we instinctly feel about ourselves. Man has always had s self-conscious sense of the special worth and dignity of the human race. This lies behind all our humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, care for the sick, alleviate suffering when we can, give monetary aid to non-profit organizations, send relief teams around the world when disasters hit, and thousands more kindnesses to man in need. When someone raises the issue about "man's inhumanity toward man", that only feeds the idea that man normally should be humane toward man.
Why is it that given the choice between saving a dog in a house fire and a small child, that everyone will opt for saving the child without having to deliberate over the matter for one second? That really does not make much sense if man is nothing more than a cog or two ahead of canines in the first place. As much as a particular brand of scientific propaganda wants us to believe that man is not that special at all, every move we make in life only confirms the opposite, that is, man has unequalled worth and dignity. People can talk all they want to about saving whales or saving the planet, in the real world where people live, we believe and act that nothing comes close to the lives of humans, even if they are total strangers.
Go to a school, hospital or special care institution, and look over how badly disabled children are treated, as they sometimes have to be strapped into mechanized high chairs. Examine how carefully trained teachers or nurses tend to their needs with amazing devotion, patience and attention. See how much money is spent for their welfare on a daily basis. If man has no intrinsic value far above everything else in existence, then why do we bother to go to such a huge outlay of money, manpower and energy to people who will likely not make much contribution to society? Wouldn't it seem to make more economic sense that we quietly exterminate them and then focus on projects that would yield some return? The only possible answer why we don't do this, even though we do exterminate babies in the womb, is because man can not get away from the fact that man has dignity, no matter what his mental or physical condition is.
Because man has dignity and worth, it is only a small step forward to say that man has more going on for him than just this life. People will say in surveys that they more readily believe in a heaven-like existence than they would a hell-like existence, but surveys don't tell the whole story. Because man is special, and when we see or read about the cruel, inhumane treatment of our fellow man, like disabled children who may be abused in an institution, we conjure up in our minds a hell-like place where those who are guilty should be assigned.
One argument remains, and while I am having some lighthearted fun with all this, all these arguments added together do not come close to the weight of Scripture on the subject. I intend to save the best for last in that regard. But for now, taking these arguments together, W.G.T. Shedd's memorable words ring out loud and clear, "If there were no hell in Scripture, we should be compelled to invent one."
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why People Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part III
Several weeks ago two small girls, who were close friends and playmates, were brutally shot to death on a country road in the small town of Weleetka, Oklahoma. To this day there have been no clues and no leads as to whom carried out this murder. Since different guns were used, it is believed that two people were involved. There have been sketches of a "person of interest", but even there, this person has not been identified and tracked down. The medical examiner report said there were a total of thirteen shots fired at close range. As time goes along, there is this nagging fear on the part of the families of these children, the law enforcement agencies, and the residents and friends in this small town, that whoever did this will be able to escape justice from the hands of men.
This is just one case among so many cold unsolved cases nationwide. Why do we want justice in this life, and when we don't get it, we are supremely dissatisfied? Why is it that when we are able to get some sort of justice in this life--what if the perpetrators of the crime mentioned above are caught, imprisoned, tried, found guilty and receive the death penalty--that even then we are not completely satisfied, but that we deep down in the secret chambers of our heart wish they would face even a greater, long-lasting justice? Our quick, easy lethal injections after a relatively comfortable stay in a prison system seems so tame compared to the crimes they committed and the level of suffering they inflicted upon their victims. Man wants more. Now why is that?
We have in downtown Oklahoma City a Survivor Tree. I have heard some relatives and friends of those who died in that 1995 bomb blast testify in front of a camera and in print that they would not be totally pleased when Timothy McVeigh would be executed for his crime. They probably wished they could have hanged McVeigh a thousand times on that Survivor Tree. Even when we get "perfect justice" in this life, it seems so imperfect. From where does that feeling emerge?
In the first two articles in this series, we have examined the argument from history, the argument from language and the argument from evolution as to why people really believe in the concept of hell, even when they say they don't. Now we come to the next argument--the argument from justice.
We moan when people "get away with murder", literally or otherwise. Sometimes crime does pay, and the victims end up paying for it, and that is simply not right on all fronts. Even the most conniving person on earth who loves to bend the rules and walk all over people to accomplish his personal aims, if he were on the receiving end of such wicked scheming by someone else, he would want that person to get "what is coming to him." Why does man demand justice?
So when people complain that certain laws are unjust, they are only helping to prove the existence of an external law that is permanent, fixed and perfect. Even in his fallen state, man has an internal moral mechanism that screams for fairness and justice. Where does that sense of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, originate, especially if man is nothing more than the blind choices of natural causes (see last week's article)?
So when people conclude correctly that there is no remedy in this life for the present triumph of evil over good in so many instances, then what they are really saying is the only logical remedy to the injustices in this life is perfect justice in the next one. No one will get away with anything then. Good will not remain unrewarded and evil will not remain unpunished. No matter how much indoctrination a person receives from our government-controlled system of higher learning, what can not be educated out of a man is the sense that there must be a place, a time, and a person who will see to it that all moral accounts will be settled somehow. All injustices will be rectified.
The opposite of this is accept the idea that nothing really matters in this life. If death leads to the end of everything, then this life is everything, and the smart thing to do then is to get as much pleasure out of this life as possible, regardless how it hurts others in the process. We should not complain then if injustice wins out at the end of the day. We should not be upset when others take advantage of us and get away with it. We should congratulate them instead for using their wits, and we should turn around and do likewise. The very fact that man will pound his fist for justice when something adverse affects him personally, only proves that "this-life- is-everything" worldview does not provide any help or hope to struggling man.
Expect man in his sinful state to come up with his own notions of what perfect justice is, and how he will escape the perfect justice in the life to come. For now, though, this ingrained longing for justice is only another argument in favor of a day of reckoning or judgment by someone who has all the facts at his disposal. Only a Perfect Judge can render perfect justice.
I heard it said by someone after the verdict was announced and after family and friends had gathered outside the courthouse, "I am so glad of the verdict from the jury. Justice has been served, but what he did to our family has caused so much pain, that he deserves the hottest part in hell."
People really believe in hell even when they say they don't. Justice demands it.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
This is just one case among so many cold unsolved cases nationwide. Why do we want justice in this life, and when we don't get it, we are supremely dissatisfied? Why is it that when we are able to get some sort of justice in this life--what if the perpetrators of the crime mentioned above are caught, imprisoned, tried, found guilty and receive the death penalty--that even then we are not completely satisfied, but that we deep down in the secret chambers of our heart wish they would face even a greater, long-lasting justice? Our quick, easy lethal injections after a relatively comfortable stay in a prison system seems so tame compared to the crimes they committed and the level of suffering they inflicted upon their victims. Man wants more. Now why is that?
We have in downtown Oklahoma City a Survivor Tree. I have heard some relatives and friends of those who died in that 1995 bomb blast testify in front of a camera and in print that they would not be totally pleased when Timothy McVeigh would be executed for his crime. They probably wished they could have hanged McVeigh a thousand times on that Survivor Tree. Even when we get "perfect justice" in this life, it seems so imperfect. From where does that feeling emerge?
In the first two articles in this series, we have examined the argument from history, the argument from language and the argument from evolution as to why people really believe in the concept of hell, even when they say they don't. Now we come to the next argument--the argument from justice.
We moan when people "get away with murder", literally or otherwise. Sometimes crime does pay, and the victims end up paying for it, and that is simply not right on all fronts. Even the most conniving person on earth who loves to bend the rules and walk all over people to accomplish his personal aims, if he were on the receiving end of such wicked scheming by someone else, he would want that person to get "what is coming to him." Why does man demand justice?
So when people complain that certain laws are unjust, they are only helping to prove the existence of an external law that is permanent, fixed and perfect. Even in his fallen state, man has an internal moral mechanism that screams for fairness and justice. Where does that sense of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, originate, especially if man is nothing more than the blind choices of natural causes (see last week's article)?
So when people conclude correctly that there is no remedy in this life for the present triumph of evil over good in so many instances, then what they are really saying is the only logical remedy to the injustices in this life is perfect justice in the next one. No one will get away with anything then. Good will not remain unrewarded and evil will not remain unpunished. No matter how much indoctrination a person receives from our government-controlled system of higher learning, what can not be educated out of a man is the sense that there must be a place, a time, and a person who will see to it that all moral accounts will be settled somehow. All injustices will be rectified.
The opposite of this is accept the idea that nothing really matters in this life. If death leads to the end of everything, then this life is everything, and the smart thing to do then is to get as much pleasure out of this life as possible, regardless how it hurts others in the process. We should not complain then if injustice wins out at the end of the day. We should not be upset when others take advantage of us and get away with it. We should congratulate them instead for using their wits, and we should turn around and do likewise. The very fact that man will pound his fist for justice when something adverse affects him personally, only proves that "this-life- is-everything" worldview does not provide any help or hope to struggling man.
Expect man in his sinful state to come up with his own notions of what perfect justice is, and how he will escape the perfect justice in the life to come. For now, though, this ingrained longing for justice is only another argument in favor of a day of reckoning or judgment by someone who has all the facts at his disposal. Only a Perfect Judge can render perfect justice.
I heard it said by someone after the verdict was announced and after family and friends had gathered outside the courthouse, "I am so glad of the verdict from the jury. Justice has been served, but what he did to our family has caused so much pain, that he deserves the hottest part in hell."
People really believe in hell even when they say they don't. Justice demands it.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Friday, August 1, 2008
Why People Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part II
My latest issue of U.S. News & World Report came in the mail the other day. I subscribed to this magazine some time ago, because 1) they had a very special subscription offer, 2) there were some gifts that I wanted that came with the subscription, and 3) it is supposed to be the most unbiased, non-liberal major magazine. I appreciated the gifts, I saved lots of money with the initial subscription offer, but I am beginning to think I need to scratch reason #3.
This issue has at its theme on the front cover: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE, with subheadings such as How will humanity evolve? What will we eat? Where will global warming hit home? How did life begin? Will we find it in the heavens?
Judging by how the questions are posed, one can easily conclude that quotations from the Bible are not to be found anywhere in the featured articles. That being said, the article that got my attention the most was the one entitled, "Will We Soon Find Life in the Heavens?" Here we read that "in the coming months, two new tools will greatly expand astrobiologists' capacity to hear and see other promising signs of life. Later this summer, the nonprofit SETI Institute. . .will begin listening for alien broadcasts on the new $50 billion Allen Telescope Array. A spread of 42 radio dishes in California's Cascade Mountains, the array is the first such facility built specifically to listen for E.T. 'We're looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation," says Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute. The array, half funded by Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, will search for alien signals at a clip 'hundreds to thousands times faster' than current SETI projects, says Shostak."
(Before I proceed, I need to interject a bit of advice to Seth Shostak. Perhaps he could save lots of time and money if he were to talk to a fellow scientist, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon on the Apollo 14 mission. He recently said aliens have visited our planet several times over the last six decades, but that our government has covered everything up.)
The last paragraph in this article is most telling. "That makes SETI the only project with grand-slam potential. Astronomer Shostak boldly predicts that SETI will hear from a real E.T. within 20 years. They think it's going too far," Shostak says. But he's convinced that 'we're going to find out, one way or the another, that biology is not a miracle.' "
The statements in this article reveal one apparent truth which has been documented in numerous other incidents--the evolutionary dogma is in serious trouble from within its own ranks. Principally because of the Intelligent Design movement, die-hard evolutionists have been playing defense for a number of years now, and the growing commotion within the halls of scientific academia are hard to ignore any longer. It may not get national press coverage, like for example in the U.S. News and World Report, but doubting Thomases of all kind can be found within the evolutionists' fold. People like William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe deserve much of the credit for exposing the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution with such commonplace terms now like specified complexity and irreducible complexity.
So what does an evolutionist do in these days? Continue to deny the irrefutable lack of evidence for evolution where Chance does not stand a chance, take personal potshots at the advocates of Intelligent Design through ad hominem attacks, move the playing field to outer space ala Star Wars or E.T., or do all the above. If you choose "all of the above", then you go to the head of the class. (Although you may be kicked out of biology class at college.)
The third alternative is the focus of this magazine article cited above. Much of this goes back to Fred Hoyle and others who proposed panspermia or transpermia, where microbes on Venus or Mars hitched a ride on a comet and carried life forms to our planet. Hence this is how life began here. Since the facts are stacking up against life beginning here through traditional evolutionary processes, evolutionists thought they have solved that sticky problem by moving the debate to another planet where no evolution defenders or Intelligent Design promoters live.
Astronomer Shostak admits the dilemma of modern-day evolutionists. Since they are hard pressed to find evidence here for how life began by resorting to their old bag of Darwinian tricks, they are forced to go where no man has gone before to prove that "biology is not a miracle." What an interesting choice of words by the astronomer--words which he did not use by chance. What is he admitting here? Two prominent things stand out.
Number one: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in our solar system, then life here on planet Earth is not that special or unique. The elephant in the evolutionists' room has always been that everything is so precise and just perfect for life to exist here on this planet--the miles we are from the sun, the rotation on the earth's axis, the physical properties of the earth, the structure of the atom, etc. This is called the "anthropic principle." There are too many variables that have to work together for life to exist here that claiming everything resulted from a cosmic role of the dice sounds incredulous. (Albert Einstein said once, "I, at any rate, am convinced that God is not playing at dice.") If evolutionists can somehow hold out hope that there is intelligent life out there somewhere, then that removes the elephant from the room. They can then proclaim that this planet is not so unique after all.
Number two: The prevalent fear in the minds of die-hard modern evolutionists is that Intelligent Design has made too many inroads in demonstrating that life truly here is nothing short of the miraculous. Microbiology and biochemistry have opened up a new world of discoveries that evolutionists probably wished never materialized. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box was like a nuclear bomb dropped in the lap of traditional evolutionary teaching. If somehow we can point to life way out there and get the attention off life right here, then maybe the evolutionists can succeed in their minds at saying that "biology is not a miracle after all."
The astronomer said that he is looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation. I am reminded of a cartoon several years ago where two aliens, who just landed on our planet, where standing outside an electronics store window. They were watching an episode of Jerry Springer's daily TV show, and after a few minutes, one said to the other, "I think we better leave. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
The Intelligent Being has spoken. The Life behind all life forms has made contact with us. We don't need $50 billion of radio dishes out in the California mountains to hear this E.T. (Eternally True) speak to us maybe one day years and years from now if we keep waiting for some faint, indiscernible signal. All we need to do is pick up an easily available copy of the Bible and start reading. How many people here are clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation by listening and heeding what this Intelligent Being has said?
What does all this have to do with hell? Last week I mention two arguments why people really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. The argument of language and the argument of history are powerful reminders that hell is not something we can wish away. Now I add the ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE. Since segments of science are so determined to find intelligent life out there, then we can happily take their efforts as a backhanded compliment to what we have always believed--that Intelligent Life has not only spoken to us, but this Intelligent Life came to visit this planet over two millennium ago. This is not Hollywood fiction, but real life historical fact that science can only support and in no way can refute.
What is more is that this in-person E.T. that came to visit us and die at the hands of earth's inhabitants spoke a whole lot about the life that is out there for all of us beyond this earthly existence. One of the two destinies is Gehenna, translated "hell" in the Communication Book from the one Intelligent Life, who in-person used that word himself eleven of the twelve times we find in this discernible Signal from Heaven. To describe this place of existence that is "out there" for all who reject Intelligent Life in this life, this all-powerful, all-good Eternally True Intelligent Being used at various times the phrase, "outer darkness." That should definitely please people like astronomer Shostak because it fits neatly in their model.
If radio dishes could be constructed to detect any signals or voices out there in this "outer darkness", then we are told already of what they would consist. It would be nothing but an unending, inexpressible blend of uncontrollable sadness and anger, a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So, thank you, modern defenders of the indefensible hypothesis of evolution with your desire to take the debate "out there". By doing so, you only give more credence to the fact that there is life out there, life beyond what is here on this earthly journey. Heaven and hell are here to stay, and that is where all will stay.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
This issue has at its theme on the front cover: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE, with subheadings such as How will humanity evolve? What will we eat? Where will global warming hit home? How did life begin? Will we find it in the heavens?
Judging by how the questions are posed, one can easily conclude that quotations from the Bible are not to be found anywhere in the featured articles. That being said, the article that got my attention the most was the one entitled, "Will We Soon Find Life in the Heavens?" Here we read that "in the coming months, two new tools will greatly expand astrobiologists' capacity to hear and see other promising signs of life. Later this summer, the nonprofit SETI Institute. . .will begin listening for alien broadcasts on the new $50 billion Allen Telescope Array. A spread of 42 radio dishes in California's Cascade Mountains, the array is the first such facility built specifically to listen for E.T. 'We're looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation," says Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute. The array, half funded by Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, will search for alien signals at a clip 'hundreds to thousands times faster' than current SETI projects, says Shostak."
(Before I proceed, I need to interject a bit of advice to Seth Shostak. Perhaps he could save lots of time and money if he were to talk to a fellow scientist, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon on the Apollo 14 mission. He recently said aliens have visited our planet several times over the last six decades, but that our government has covered everything up.)
The last paragraph in this article is most telling. "That makes SETI the only project with grand-slam potential. Astronomer Shostak boldly predicts that SETI will hear from a real E.T. within 20 years. They think it's going too far," Shostak says. But he's convinced that 'we're going to find out, one way or the another, that biology is not a miracle.' "
The statements in this article reveal one apparent truth which has been documented in numerous other incidents--the evolutionary dogma is in serious trouble from within its own ranks. Principally because of the Intelligent Design movement, die-hard evolutionists have been playing defense for a number of years now, and the growing commotion within the halls of scientific academia are hard to ignore any longer. It may not get national press coverage, like for example in the U.S. News and World Report, but doubting Thomases of all kind can be found within the evolutionists' fold. People like William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe deserve much of the credit for exposing the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution with such commonplace terms now like specified complexity and irreducible complexity.
So what does an evolutionist do in these days? Continue to deny the irrefutable lack of evidence for evolution where Chance does not stand a chance, take personal potshots at the advocates of Intelligent Design through ad hominem attacks, move the playing field to outer space ala Star Wars or E.T., or do all the above. If you choose "all of the above", then you go to the head of the class. (Although you may be kicked out of biology class at college.)
The third alternative is the focus of this magazine article cited above. Much of this goes back to Fred Hoyle and others who proposed panspermia or transpermia, where microbes on Venus or Mars hitched a ride on a comet and carried life forms to our planet. Hence this is how life began here. Since the facts are stacking up against life beginning here through traditional evolutionary processes, evolutionists thought they have solved that sticky problem by moving the debate to another planet where no evolution defenders or Intelligent Design promoters live.
Astronomer Shostak admits the dilemma of modern-day evolutionists. Since they are hard pressed to find evidence here for how life began by resorting to their old bag of Darwinian tricks, they are forced to go where no man has gone before to prove that "biology is not a miracle." What an interesting choice of words by the astronomer--words which he did not use by chance. What is he admitting here? Two prominent things stand out.
Number one: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in our solar system, then life here on planet Earth is not that special or unique. The elephant in the evolutionists' room has always been that everything is so precise and just perfect for life to exist here on this planet--the miles we are from the sun, the rotation on the earth's axis, the physical properties of the earth, the structure of the atom, etc. This is called the "anthropic principle." There are too many variables that have to work together for life to exist here that claiming everything resulted from a cosmic role of the dice sounds incredulous. (Albert Einstein said once, "I, at any rate, am convinced that God is not playing at dice.") If evolutionists can somehow hold out hope that there is intelligent life out there somewhere, then that removes the elephant from the room. They can then proclaim that this planet is not so unique after all.
Number two: The prevalent fear in the minds of die-hard modern evolutionists is that Intelligent Design has made too many inroads in demonstrating that life truly here is nothing short of the miraculous. Microbiology and biochemistry have opened up a new world of discoveries that evolutionists probably wished never materialized. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box was like a nuclear bomb dropped in the lap of traditional evolutionary teaching. If somehow we can point to life way out there and get the attention off life right here, then maybe the evolutionists can succeed in their minds at saying that "biology is not a miracle after all."
The astronomer said that he is looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation. I am reminded of a cartoon several years ago where two aliens, who just landed on our planet, where standing outside an electronics store window. They were watching an episode of Jerry Springer's daily TV show, and after a few minutes, one said to the other, "I think we better leave. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
The Intelligent Being has spoken. The Life behind all life forms has made contact with us. We don't need $50 billion of radio dishes out in the California mountains to hear this E.T. (Eternally True) speak to us maybe one day years and years from now if we keep waiting for some faint, indiscernible signal. All we need to do is pick up an easily available copy of the Bible and start reading. How many people here are clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation by listening and heeding what this Intelligent Being has said?
What does all this have to do with hell? Last week I mention two arguments why people really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. The argument of language and the argument of history are powerful reminders that hell is not something we can wish away. Now I add the ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE. Since segments of science are so determined to find intelligent life out there, then we can happily take their efforts as a backhanded compliment to what we have always believed--that Intelligent Life has not only spoken to us, but this Intelligent Life came to visit this planet over two millennium ago. This is not Hollywood fiction, but real life historical fact that science can only support and in no way can refute.
What is more is that this in-person E.T. that came to visit us and die at the hands of earth's inhabitants spoke a whole lot about the life that is out there for all of us beyond this earthly existence. One of the two destinies is Gehenna, translated "hell" in the Communication Book from the one Intelligent Life, who in-person used that word himself eleven of the twelve times we find in this discernible Signal from Heaven. To describe this place of existence that is "out there" for all who reject Intelligent Life in this life, this all-powerful, all-good Eternally True Intelligent Being used at various times the phrase, "outer darkness." That should definitely please people like astronomer Shostak because it fits neatly in their model.
If radio dishes could be constructed to detect any signals or voices out there in this "outer darkness", then we are told already of what they would consist. It would be nothing but an unending, inexpressible blend of uncontrollable sadness and anger, a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So, thank you, modern defenders of the indefensible hypothesis of evolution with your desire to take the debate "out there". By doing so, you only give more credence to the fact that there is life out there, life beyond what is here on this earthly journey. Heaven and hell are here to stay, and that is where all will stay.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)