I have before me the full transcript of a presidential inauguration prayer. . .the one that has gone largely unnoticed due to the furor created by another inauguration prayer made by Rev. Joseph Lowery.
In the prayer made by Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, popular author, and often billed as America's pastor and the next Billy Graham, he made some very far-reaching statements that have ignited all sorts of reactions from various groups of people.
The prayer was designed intentionally to be inclusive of people of all faiths and all walks of life. At the beginning, to appeal to the Jewish segment, he quoted the familiar Shema out of Deuteronomy, a foundational Jewish prayer. Immediately on the heels of that, he referred to God and "the compassionate and merciful one." That God truly is, but all Muslims recognize that as the invocation given at the beginning of every chapter except one in the Qur'an, "In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful."
A little later in his prayer, Pastor Warren says, "We are so grateful to live in this land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven." Such sentimental thoughts may be nice, but they are hardly biblical. We have no scriptural authority to rest on that the the witnesses in heaven, i.e. only justified believers in Jesus Christ alone, can witness the events on earth. More importantly, though, it is hard to tell who Rick Warren believes who are the ones who are the witnesses in heaven.
After these remarks, Pastor Warren delves into a World Council of Churches social gospel type of prayer litany. He concludes his prayer by reciting the traditional Lord's prayer, which was preceded by this statement, "I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life--Yeshua, Isa, Jesus (Spanish pronunciation), Jesus. . ."
Isa is the Qur'an's spelling of Jesus, a prophet of God but he is no way in the eyes of Muslims a prophet on par with Muhammad. Isa can not be fully trusted, nor can the Bible. Isa did not die on the cross; Judas Iscariot did. Isa was not the divine Son of God. Isa is not the only way to God. Isa was not resurrected from the dead. Isa does not reign in heaven now. Isa is not King of kings and Lord of lords. There is no forgiveness or atonement from sin by Isa. Jesus of the Bible in no way compares with the Isa of the Qur'an.
Yet, Pastor Warren saw no apparent conflict in using the name of Isa as a substitute for Jesus in his inclusive prayer.
The reaction to Rick Warren's prayer has been mixed. Some laud it as being generously inclusive as he tried to reach out to all groups of people. Others, though, who some might think would appreciate his attempt to include everyone, are very critical of Warren's effort to straddle the fence and of trying too hard to to be all things to all people. Catholics are upset that "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever" was used, since they don't say that line in their recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Others see it as a very non-inclusive prayer since invoking Jesus' name alienates non-Christians. Muslims may think the quotation from the Qur'an was just a bone thrown to appease all Muslims. Jews found the mention of Jesus as offensive. Even though Pastor Warren used words from Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy texts, he is finding criticisms from all groups of people of "faith", the very groups he wanted so much to please in his inclusive prayer.
So what do we learn from all this? If our best efforts to be "inclusive" of all peoples encounter hostile or critical reactions from the people we want to "include", then why even try? How inclusive must we go in order to be liked by all people? Are we going to get to the place where if you just breathe, no matter if you are a Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or lesbian, then that means you are loved by God and He will accept you into His heaven, whatever that is and whatever you want it to be?
How "inclusive" is God? "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Was Jesus being inclusive in John 14:6? Was the apostle Paul being "inclusive" in Acts 17 when he met up with a different people of "faith", who were idol worshippers, or did he say instead, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead"?
Let us not confuse citizenship in this country, where we can be and are inclusive, with citizenship in the kingdom of God, where most people are excluded because they have not believed in Christ alone for their salvation and repented from their sin.
Rather than trying to bend over backwards to show how big-hearted and open-minded we are, how about us being faithful to the One who has called us and to the Word which He has given to us? I don't remember reading that what we want to hear from God one day is something along the lines of, "Well done, good and inclusive servant, enter now into the joy of the Lord," but instead we should desire to hear, "Well done, good and FAITHFUL servant, enter now into the joy of the Lord."
Exclusively for Christ,
Chris
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Multiple Choice Regarding the Master's Choice
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)