It is hard to believe that any of those who call upon Jesus as Lord of life would consider Him and His work on the cross as a disappointing failure. We have to remember that is exactly how Jesus' first followers felt, at least for three days when they were cowering in the corner for "fear of the Jews." A conquering Messiah who would free them from the shackles of Rome? Instead, all they got for their three years of devotion to this rabbi from Nazareth was their hoped-for messiah dying at the hands of Rome. That was not exactly what they had in mind for a deliverer. In their depressed, misguided mental state for three days, Jesus was a dismal flop. Maybe the taunting crowd got it right--He could save others, but He could not save Himself. How can one deliver us from Rome when that same one is delivered over to Rome to die, and the one did nothing to prevent it?
Sunday came, and how a resurrection can be a cure for so many ills! The first Christian sermon was preached on the Day of Pentecost by none other than the thrice-denying Peter. All of a sudden as one reads Acts 2 we get the immediate impression that Peter, the other apostles and the first believers thought of Jesus and His crucifixion as a resounding success story. It finally dawned on them that Jesus' cry from the cross was not "I am finished", but "It is finished." The atonement for man's sin was mission accomplished. Deliverance from the power and penalty of sin, and one day from the presence of sin, was and is far more earth-shattering and world-changing than a political deliverance from some mortal enemies.
When it comes to understanding the impact of the atonement, are we in the corner with the post-resurrection apostles, or are we more identifiable with the pre-resurrection apostles? Are we relishing in a success story, or are we pondering an event of colossal failure and massive disappointment?
No matter how one wants to slice it or parse it, either we are on the side of "It is finished", or "Well, really it is not quite yet finished."
Did Jesus' death on the cross actually procure the salvation of anyone? Or did Jesus' death merely make it possible for a person to be saved? Are people redeemed by Jesus' blood, or are people just made redeemable? Did Jesus' death accomplish anything, i.e. "It is finished", or was Jesus' death a necessary piece of the salvation puzzle, but something is needed from us to make it complete, i.e. "Well, really it is not quite yet finished?"
As indicated in John 17 by Jesus Himself, Jesus died for all those whom the Father had given Him. If Jesus died for no one in particular and everyone in general, then we are stuck with two equally bad options: either all people are saved as logic demands it, or Jesus' death is insufficient to save us from our sin, because something else must be supplied by man and his "free will", in order for salvation to be realized. Look at the obvious results if the latter is true. Most die and go to eternity apart from God. "Broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." That means that Jesus' death was for the most part a dismal flop. Most of His blood was spilled in vain. Do we really want to believe we have a failure for a Savior?
We have much better news to share with the world than a "maybe so Savior and possible Lord with an iffy salvation offer." God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
Those whom God has chosen, those whom God's Spirit calls, and those for whom the Son dies, all belong to the same group of people. They are God's success story. Every person for whom Jesus died will be saved. Every drop of Jesus' blood was shed for a definite purpose and for a definite people. It is finished.
How does a person know beforehand if he is a person that God has chosen beforehand, and that Jesus' death was meant for him? Easy. Just repent from sin and trust solely in Jesus, and that person will know. God will never refuse a repentant sinner. The verse that ends with "and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out" is preceded by "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." (John 6:37) He will always get His man, His woman, His boy, His girl. And the man, the woman, the boy and the girl that come to the Lord will always get Him.
None of the apostles or early Christians in the book of Acts ever looked into the eye of a lost person and said, "Jesus died for you, or Jesus died for everyone in the world." Not one sermon or witnessing activity in the book of Acts ever records anything like that. What we do find over and over again is the telling of God's success story. Jesus died, He rose from the grave, you must believe in Him, you must turn from your sin, and when you do, you will find forgiveness from your sin and eternal life in Him. "And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)
There is not much good news in a dismal flop, if truly Jesus' death was weak and ineffective by itself. The ones who propose a really limited atonement are those who say that Jesus is severely limited in saving anyone, and truth be told, if Jesus died for no one in particular then it would be feasible that no one would ever be saved, since it relies upon the exercise of sinful man to complete what Jesus had done.
So either we believe that Jesus' death was a resounding success or a dismal flop. Either we belong in the camp of the post-resurrection apostles or the pre-resurrection apostles. During this most holy week of the year for all believers in Christ, I pray more and more will side with the victorious gospel, and let the world continue to traffic in all the stories of widespread disappointments and abject failures. That will only make God's success story stand out in sharper contrast.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Shock of THE SHACK
Let me say up front that I have never read the bestselling novel, THE SHACK, by Paul Young. I have also never played with rattlesnakes; I have never bungee jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge; I have never swallowed a whole jar of arsenic; I have never played basketball with my girls in the middle of a freeway during rush hour traffic. In other words, one does not have to read a particular book in order to know some things about it, especially if there are some things that can be very dangerous to one's spiritual health. Experience can be a good thing if it is an experience about a good thing.
My oldest daughter was given a copy of THE SHACK during freshman orientation at college. The Baptist Student Ministries on campus was handing out copies of it to all incoming freshmen (and freshwomen, PC style). That is a story in itself, which is one reason behind the writing of this article. I can think of more worthy reading material to give to college students or anybody for that matter.
One of these days, when I make the time for it, and when I have exhausted my current reading list, I may read THE SHACK, if for no other reason to find out for myself exactly what people are
learning about God from a fictional book written by an author who by his own admission denies the substitutionary, penal atonement of Jesus. This came on an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams on KAYP Radio, and I have the transcript before me as I type this.
This particular blog article is not intended to be a full-blown critique of THE SHACK. Others have done a great job in doing that, and I would direct a person's attention to one such source, Lighthouse Trails Research. My chief complaint has to do with the author's syrupy old liberal, new emergent, perspective on Jesus' death on the cross, which is that Jesus died on the cross basically to show us how much He loves us and how much we should love our fellow man. It is an example of sacrificial love that we should emulate. And that's about it. According to Young and others like him, Jesus' death has lots of emotional overtones to it, but it has very little, if any, theological underpinnings to it.
Backing up, I should say I have two glaring reservations about this book, even before I ever read a word in it. One is that Rev. Oprah highly recommends this book. I am sure there might be some good books out there that has Oprah's seal of approval on them, but when it comes to books on religion that she recommends, there are enough red flags that go up in my mind for me to stay clear of anything she endorses. Maybe you can't judge a book by its cover, but often it is true you can judge a book by who gives it cover.
The second reservation is the author's errant and abhorrent understanding of the whole purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus. Everything else about the book, even some "noble" or "harmless" features, will not impress me. We can debate all we want to about the "end-times" and the events around the Second Coming of Jesus; we can discuss among ourselves over who wrote the book of Hebrews; we can disagree over the exact relationship a Christian today has to the old covenant law. But when it comes to the nature of Jesus and the purpose of the cross, we better get it right.
"Who do people say that I am?" "Who do you say I am?" "I preach Christ and Him crucified." If we get the IDENTITY of Jesus wrong, and if we misunderstand the INTENTION of Jesus on the cross, then we impugn His character and insult His gospel. Everything else in any book becomes meaningless talk with some cheap entertainment value but not a lick of solid edification value. After all, is not that the plague and plight of American Christians today? Has not entertainment value superseded sound biblical teaching? When asked over and over again in various surveys, guess what makes the top of the list every time when it comes to what most people are looking for in a church?
THE SHACK fits like a hand in a glove to Americans' unquenchable thirst for light fun fare, that does not involve much thinking, much repentance and much obedience. We really are amusing ourselves to death. A relative told me once that she thought it would be far better if we gave lost people a very popular end-time fictional book than a copy of Scripture. So much for Hebrews 4:12. It seems we have come a far cry from Isaiah's cry over the holy awe of God in chapter six of his book to the disrespect shown for our Lord in such things as Bruce Almighty. I love a good laugh, but what are we doing laughing at God, laughing at His own expense?
THE SHACK is symptomatic of a deeper underlying issue. So many don't know the Word, nor do they care to, nor do they want to submit to it when they are wrong in how they live and what they believe. And I am not talking about the heathen out there. THE SHACK makes for better reading than the book of Romans. Justification by faith is antiquated. The portrayal of the Trinity in The Shack is fresh and invigorating, and who cares if it is modalism and irreverent? Don't be surprised if we have a sermon series on THE SHACK show up somewhere, or a "bible study" guide on THE SHACK that appears on Christian book store shelves. We have done that for "I Love Lucy", so why not for The Shack? A large Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma recently had Paul Young speak at their church, so we are well on the way. Who needs the apostle Paul when we can have Paul Young?
Before one misinterprets what I am saying, I am not insinuating anything about anyone who has a copy of THE SHACK or who reads THE SHACK. Like I said before, I may end up reading it myself one day. But I can guarantee you this--I will not be reading that book to get a better "feel" for what God is like. My chief fear is that due to the alarming lack of discernment among biblically illiterate and doctrinally inept people today in our churches, many will take THE SHACK as the gospel. It is not the gospel; it does not come close to the gospel; it debunks the gospel.
For any person to say that Jesus' death on the cross was not a punishment for our sin, that it did not satisfy the holy demands of a just God, that Jesus did not bear the sins of His people on the cross, that He did not die as a willing, needed substitute in our place, that it was the only way sinful man could be reconciled to a sovereign, good God, then that person whomever he or she may be has ripped the heart out of the gospel. All we are left with is a hero-type senseless brutal death that accomplishes nothing of eternal significance. If the first century Jewish leaders could not grasp the full implications of Isaiah 53, then how are we any different if we deny the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus that fully paid for the sins of a multitude of sinners?
Yes, in the cross, God showed His love (Romans 5:8), and yes, in the cross, we have an example to follow. But it is more than just love and it is much more than an example. If I jumped into a lake and began drowning, and while doing so, I cry out to people on the beach, "Hey, I am doing this because I love you," don't you think people would have a right to think of me as some sort of a nut case? Exactly how does that show love? How am I really helping people by drowning myself? If that is all we mean by the death of Jesus on the cross, then I guess to follow His example, we need to quit telling people to repent and believe in the gospel; instead, we should just tell people to go jump in a lake.
In 1 Peter 2:21-23, we see a legitimate case for how Jesus' sufferings are an example for us in terms to how we should interact with sufferings that come our way. Notice though that the Lord through Peter quickly moves into saying in v. 24, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed." The cross is more than a piece of decorative piece of jewelry; it is more than just a good headstone or memorial marker along the highway; it more than just a good model; it is primarily THE means by which God atoned for the sins of ungodly, wicked sinners, when His Son died to pay the just penalty of man's sin.
At nighttime now as part of our family devotions, our family is reading slowly through BiteSize Theology by Peter Jeffery. Last night, one of our girls read this part: "Salvation was planned in heaven but it could not be accomplished in heaven. Atonement for sin must be made to God by man's representative (Son of Man). But there was no man qualified to do this, for all are sinners. The eternal God became man (Son of God), so that by His death (Hebrews 2:14), He might accomplish salvation for His people. God became man so that as the man Jesus He could die for His people and purchase their salvation. Paul puts it like this in Romans 5:17. . ."
My girls got more solid biblical teaching in that one paragraph than they or anyone will ever get from reading THE SHACK. Perhaps it is not so much that we should have a strong disgust and hatred for this book or any like it, as if we should only be known as what we are against all the time; maybe it can be more properly stated that we should have such a strong love, enduring appreciation, and growing appetite for nothing but the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, that anything we imbibe from time to time that is of a different flavor we immediately spit out as bland or poisonous in comparison.
Yours for the Truth and not for fiction,
Chris
My oldest daughter was given a copy of THE SHACK during freshman orientation at college. The Baptist Student Ministries on campus was handing out copies of it to all incoming freshmen (and freshwomen, PC style). That is a story in itself, which is one reason behind the writing of this article. I can think of more worthy reading material to give to college students or anybody for that matter.
One of these days, when I make the time for it, and when I have exhausted my current reading list, I may read THE SHACK, if for no other reason to find out for myself exactly what people are
learning about God from a fictional book written by an author who by his own admission denies the substitutionary, penal atonement of Jesus. This came on an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams on KAYP Radio, and I have the transcript before me as I type this.
This particular blog article is not intended to be a full-blown critique of THE SHACK. Others have done a great job in doing that, and I would direct a person's attention to one such source, Lighthouse Trails Research. My chief complaint has to do with the author's syrupy old liberal, new emergent, perspective on Jesus' death on the cross, which is that Jesus died on the cross basically to show us how much He loves us and how much we should love our fellow man. It is an example of sacrificial love that we should emulate. And that's about it. According to Young and others like him, Jesus' death has lots of emotional overtones to it, but it has very little, if any, theological underpinnings to it.
Backing up, I should say I have two glaring reservations about this book, even before I ever read a word in it. One is that Rev. Oprah highly recommends this book. I am sure there might be some good books out there that has Oprah's seal of approval on them, but when it comes to books on religion that she recommends, there are enough red flags that go up in my mind for me to stay clear of anything she endorses. Maybe you can't judge a book by its cover, but often it is true you can judge a book by who gives it cover.
The second reservation is the author's errant and abhorrent understanding of the whole purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus. Everything else about the book, even some "noble" or "harmless" features, will not impress me. We can debate all we want to about the "end-times" and the events around the Second Coming of Jesus; we can discuss among ourselves over who wrote the book of Hebrews; we can disagree over the exact relationship a Christian today has to the old covenant law. But when it comes to the nature of Jesus and the purpose of the cross, we better get it right.
"Who do people say that I am?" "Who do you say I am?" "I preach Christ and Him crucified." If we get the IDENTITY of Jesus wrong, and if we misunderstand the INTENTION of Jesus on the cross, then we impugn His character and insult His gospel. Everything else in any book becomes meaningless talk with some cheap entertainment value but not a lick of solid edification value. After all, is not that the plague and plight of American Christians today? Has not entertainment value superseded sound biblical teaching? When asked over and over again in various surveys, guess what makes the top of the list every time when it comes to what most people are looking for in a church?
THE SHACK fits like a hand in a glove to Americans' unquenchable thirst for light fun fare, that does not involve much thinking, much repentance and much obedience. We really are amusing ourselves to death. A relative told me once that she thought it would be far better if we gave lost people a very popular end-time fictional book than a copy of Scripture. So much for Hebrews 4:12. It seems we have come a far cry from Isaiah's cry over the holy awe of God in chapter six of his book to the disrespect shown for our Lord in such things as Bruce Almighty. I love a good laugh, but what are we doing laughing at God, laughing at His own expense?
THE SHACK is symptomatic of a deeper underlying issue. So many don't know the Word, nor do they care to, nor do they want to submit to it when they are wrong in how they live and what they believe. And I am not talking about the heathen out there. THE SHACK makes for better reading than the book of Romans. Justification by faith is antiquated. The portrayal of the Trinity in The Shack is fresh and invigorating, and who cares if it is modalism and irreverent? Don't be surprised if we have a sermon series on THE SHACK show up somewhere, or a "bible study" guide on THE SHACK that appears on Christian book store shelves. We have done that for "I Love Lucy", so why not for The Shack? A large Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma recently had Paul Young speak at their church, so we are well on the way. Who needs the apostle Paul when we can have Paul Young?
Before one misinterprets what I am saying, I am not insinuating anything about anyone who has a copy of THE SHACK or who reads THE SHACK. Like I said before, I may end up reading it myself one day. But I can guarantee you this--I will not be reading that book to get a better "feel" for what God is like. My chief fear is that due to the alarming lack of discernment among biblically illiterate and doctrinally inept people today in our churches, many will take THE SHACK as the gospel. It is not the gospel; it does not come close to the gospel; it debunks the gospel.
For any person to say that Jesus' death on the cross was not a punishment for our sin, that it did not satisfy the holy demands of a just God, that Jesus did not bear the sins of His people on the cross, that He did not die as a willing, needed substitute in our place, that it was the only way sinful man could be reconciled to a sovereign, good God, then that person whomever he or she may be has ripped the heart out of the gospel. All we are left with is a hero-type senseless brutal death that accomplishes nothing of eternal significance. If the first century Jewish leaders could not grasp the full implications of Isaiah 53, then how are we any different if we deny the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus that fully paid for the sins of a multitude of sinners?
Yes, in the cross, God showed His love (Romans 5:8), and yes, in the cross, we have an example to follow. But it is more than just love and it is much more than an example. If I jumped into a lake and began drowning, and while doing so, I cry out to people on the beach, "Hey, I am doing this because I love you," don't you think people would have a right to think of me as some sort of a nut case? Exactly how does that show love? How am I really helping people by drowning myself? If that is all we mean by the death of Jesus on the cross, then I guess to follow His example, we need to quit telling people to repent and believe in the gospel; instead, we should just tell people to go jump in a lake.
In 1 Peter 2:21-23, we see a legitimate case for how Jesus' sufferings are an example for us in terms to how we should interact with sufferings that come our way. Notice though that the Lord through Peter quickly moves into saying in v. 24, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed." The cross is more than a piece of decorative piece of jewelry; it is more than just a good headstone or memorial marker along the highway; it more than just a good model; it is primarily THE means by which God atoned for the sins of ungodly, wicked sinners, when His Son died to pay the just penalty of man's sin.
At nighttime now as part of our family devotions, our family is reading slowly through BiteSize Theology by Peter Jeffery. Last night, one of our girls read this part: "Salvation was planned in heaven but it could not be accomplished in heaven. Atonement for sin must be made to God by man's representative (Son of Man). But there was no man qualified to do this, for all are sinners. The eternal God became man (Son of God), so that by His death (Hebrews 2:14), He might accomplish salvation for His people. God became man so that as the man Jesus He could die for His people and purchase their salvation. Paul puts it like this in Romans 5:17. . ."
My girls got more solid biblical teaching in that one paragraph than they or anyone will ever get from reading THE SHACK. Perhaps it is not so much that we should have a strong disgust and hatred for this book or any like it, as if we should only be known as what we are against all the time; maybe it can be more properly stated that we should have such a strong love, enduring appreciation, and growing appetite for nothing but the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, that anything we imbibe from time to time that is of a different flavor we immediately spit out as bland or poisonous in comparison.
Yours for the Truth and not for fiction,
Chris
Saturday, March 14, 2009
JESUS DID WHAT FOR WHOM?
Jesus was the most controversial person who ever lived. Should it surprise us then that what He did for whom would create quite a stir through the centuries?
It sounds pretty simple enough--Jesus died on the cross for sinners. How can that be controversial? Well, in 1 Corinthians 1, we read that it caused a furor in the first century, because to the Jews the cross was a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it was downright silly and foolish. Even today, those who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross are not in agreement over such matters as why He had to die, what His death accomplished, and how His death fits into the whole scheme of salvation.
Jesus did what for whom? The "what" concerns the nature of the atonement. The "for whom" concerns the extent of the atonement. Those are the two vital pieces in understanding exactly what happened when Jesus died on a Roman cross some two thousand years ago. It really is hard to separate the two, because the nature of the atonement includes the extent of the atonement, and the extent of the atonement includes the nature of the atonement.
I will first tackle the "for whom" in this article. I often do things backwards. (Remember my Acute Birthday Dyslexia issue?) For whom did Jesus die?
How can that be controversial? The answer is simple enough, right? Most of us have heard all our lives that Jesus died for everyone. He died for all sinners, and that's everyone. Let's assume that is the case, and see if it he can stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and sound logic. Why logic, one might say?
The Bible is not illogical. It is above man's reason, but it is not irrational. The Trinity is one such example. Try to explain it, and you will lose your mind. Try to explain it away, and you will lose your soul. Such notable personalities today on the Christian circuit as T.D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig & Dean deny the Trinity. While we can not fully comprehend how three persons can be one in essence, it still is not anti-logic.
The Bible is much more than logical, but it is not illogical. Isaac Watts, who wrote many of our hymns, also wrote much on the use of logic in Scripture. Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection by using step-by-step sound logic in 1 Corinthians 15. Apologetics is the interweaving of logic and Scripture.
For our purposes for now, let's just use the logic angle to examine if the statement that Jesus died for everyone is a logical deduction from Scripture. It has been said more than once that the difference between a plagiarist and a researcher is that a plagiarist borrows from one source, and a researcher borrows from more than one source. I try my best to be a researcher most of the time, but this time I will readily admit to being a plagiarist. I have taken liberties with John Owen's famous logical approach to the inquiry, "For whom did Jesus die?"
Let us look at it from one of four possible options:
1. Jesus died for all the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus died for some of the sins of everyone.
3. Jesus died for some of the sins of some.
4. Jesus died for all the sins of some.
Three of the above are Owen's own, and I have added one myself. I suppose we could add more, like Jesus died for no sins of no one, but if that is so, then nobody would be reading a blog like this in the first place. Much worse than that, there would be no need to read the Bible.
Let us take each of the four above possible answers one by one and see how each one squares with sound biblical logic.
If #2 or #3 is correct, then we have a huge problem immediately. If only some of our sins were atoned for on the cross, then Jesus' death was an exercise in futility. If 99.9% of our sins were atoned for, then that unforgiven .1% would qualify us for hell. We can easily dismiss with options #2 and #3.
We are left with options #1 and #4. The first option has that populist appeal, because it is the one that we are much more familiar with and what we have probably heard all of our lives. So let's take that option and see how it fares with consistent logic.
If we say that Jesus died for all sins of everyone, then we can ask the next question, "Are all people saved then?" To which most will respond, "Of course not. A person must believe or trust in Jesus to be saved." Logically, then, we can rightfully deduce that the sin of unbelief will send a person to hell.
But, how can that be, when we are told that Jesus died for ALL the sins of everyone. Does that not include the sin of unbelief? If it does not, then Jesus did not die for ALL the sins of everyone. He did not die for the sin of unbelief, which naturally leads us to accept the option that Jesus then died for some (or most, or nearly all) of the sins of everyone, which leads us nowhere except hell.
So, either if option #1 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to heaven, which is the liberal doctrine of universalism (i.e., Jesus died for all the sins including unbelief of everyone, so no one goes to hell, and all go to heaven), or option #2 or option #3 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to hell, because there are some sins that Jesus did not atone for and He can not forgive.
No matter how one frames it, or tries to redefine it, like saying, "Well, Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, but you have to believe to be saved," we are still left with a quagmire of gigantic illogical proportions that we can not avoid. We have to end up saying that Jesus died for all the sins except one, the sin of unbelief. So, grudgingly, we have to admit, maybe under our breath, that Jesus' death is limited in some sense of the word. It is limited in that He really did not die for ALL the sins of everyone.
It is further limited when we try to describe who fits the description of "everyone." Did Jesus die for the fallen angels? They are beings, although not human beings. They are sinful beings nonetheless. Nobody credible I know has proposed the idea that Jesus died for Satan and his demons. So we have limited the extent of Jesus' death, if we maintain option #1 is still the correct one, to people only, and it excludes fallen supernatural beings.
But it must be limited even more so. What about the people who were already in Hades when Jesus died on the cross? Did Jesus die for everyone who were already in Hades? Does that mean that those in Hades can be saved? Some do put forth the notion that there is a second chance after death, but Scripture and logic rail against such a fairy tale position. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
To carry it to its logical conclusions, if option #1 is true, then we have to conclude that:
1) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it did not cover all sin, i.e. the sin of unbelief.
2) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include the fallen supernatural beings.
3) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include all those who died prior to Christ's death on the cross. (So, if an unbelieving person in Egypt or Rome or Damascus or Jerusalem died five minutes or five seconds prior to Jesus' final breath on the cross, that person would not be included in the "everyone" for whom Jesus supposedly died.)
To be consistent, option #1 must be rephrased: Jesus died for all the sins except unbelief for everyone except for all the fallen supernatural beings and except for all the people who were already in Hades.
How illogical must we have to be in order to uphold an illogical option when there is a better one out there that is scriptural and logical at the same time?
It sounds pretty simple enough--Jesus died on the cross for sinners. How can that be controversial? Well, in 1 Corinthians 1, we read that it caused a furor in the first century, because to the Jews the cross was a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it was downright silly and foolish. Even today, those who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross are not in agreement over such matters as why He had to die, what His death accomplished, and how His death fits into the whole scheme of salvation.
Jesus did what for whom? The "what" concerns the nature of the atonement. The "for whom" concerns the extent of the atonement. Those are the two vital pieces in understanding exactly what happened when Jesus died on a Roman cross some two thousand years ago. It really is hard to separate the two, because the nature of the atonement includes the extent of the atonement, and the extent of the atonement includes the nature of the atonement.
I will first tackle the "for whom" in this article. I often do things backwards. (Remember my Acute Birthday Dyslexia issue?) For whom did Jesus die?
How can that be controversial? The answer is simple enough, right? Most of us have heard all our lives that Jesus died for everyone. He died for all sinners, and that's everyone. Let's assume that is the case, and see if it he can stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and sound logic. Why logic, one might say?
The Bible is not illogical. It is above man's reason, but it is not irrational. The Trinity is one such example. Try to explain it, and you will lose your mind. Try to explain it away, and you will lose your soul. Such notable personalities today on the Christian circuit as T.D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig & Dean deny the Trinity. While we can not fully comprehend how three persons can be one in essence, it still is not anti-logic.
The Bible is much more than logical, but it is not illogical. Isaac Watts, who wrote many of our hymns, also wrote much on the use of logic in Scripture. Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection by using step-by-step sound logic in 1 Corinthians 15. Apologetics is the interweaving of logic and Scripture.
For our purposes for now, let's just use the logic angle to examine if the statement that Jesus died for everyone is a logical deduction from Scripture. It has been said more than once that the difference between a plagiarist and a researcher is that a plagiarist borrows from one source, and a researcher borrows from more than one source. I try my best to be a researcher most of the time, but this time I will readily admit to being a plagiarist. I have taken liberties with John Owen's famous logical approach to the inquiry, "For whom did Jesus die?"
Let us look at it from one of four possible options:
1. Jesus died for all the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus died for some of the sins of everyone.
3. Jesus died for some of the sins of some.
4. Jesus died for all the sins of some.
Three of the above are Owen's own, and I have added one myself. I suppose we could add more, like Jesus died for no sins of no one, but if that is so, then nobody would be reading a blog like this in the first place. Much worse than that, there would be no need to read the Bible.
Let us take each of the four above possible answers one by one and see how each one squares with sound biblical logic.
If #2 or #3 is correct, then we have a huge problem immediately. If only some of our sins were atoned for on the cross, then Jesus' death was an exercise in futility. If 99.9% of our sins were atoned for, then that unforgiven .1% would qualify us for hell. We can easily dismiss with options #2 and #3.
We are left with options #1 and #4. The first option has that populist appeal, because it is the one that we are much more familiar with and what we have probably heard all of our lives. So let's take that option and see how it fares with consistent logic.
If we say that Jesus died for all sins of everyone, then we can ask the next question, "Are all people saved then?" To which most will respond, "Of course not. A person must believe or trust in Jesus to be saved." Logically, then, we can rightfully deduce that the sin of unbelief will send a person to hell.
But, how can that be, when we are told that Jesus died for ALL the sins of everyone. Does that not include the sin of unbelief? If it does not, then Jesus did not die for ALL the sins of everyone. He did not die for the sin of unbelief, which naturally leads us to accept the option that Jesus then died for some (or most, or nearly all) of the sins of everyone, which leads us nowhere except hell.
So, either if option #1 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to heaven, which is the liberal doctrine of universalism (i.e., Jesus died for all the sins including unbelief of everyone, so no one goes to hell, and all go to heaven), or option #2 or option #3 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to hell, because there are some sins that Jesus did not atone for and He can not forgive.
No matter how one frames it, or tries to redefine it, like saying, "Well, Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, but you have to believe to be saved," we are still left with a quagmire of gigantic illogical proportions that we can not avoid. We have to end up saying that Jesus died for all the sins except one, the sin of unbelief. So, grudgingly, we have to admit, maybe under our breath, that Jesus' death is limited in some sense of the word. It is limited in that He really did not die for ALL the sins of everyone.
It is further limited when we try to describe who fits the description of "everyone." Did Jesus die for the fallen angels? They are beings, although not human beings. They are sinful beings nonetheless. Nobody credible I know has proposed the idea that Jesus died for Satan and his demons. So we have limited the extent of Jesus' death, if we maintain option #1 is still the correct one, to people only, and it excludes fallen supernatural beings.
But it must be limited even more so. What about the people who were already in Hades when Jesus died on the cross? Did Jesus die for everyone who were already in Hades? Does that mean that those in Hades can be saved? Some do put forth the notion that there is a second chance after death, but Scripture and logic rail against such a fairy tale position. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
To carry it to its logical conclusions, if option #1 is true, then we have to conclude that:
1) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it did not cover all sin, i.e. the sin of unbelief.
2) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include the fallen supernatural beings.
3) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include all those who died prior to Christ's death on the cross. (So, if an unbelieving person in Egypt or Rome or Damascus or Jerusalem died five minutes or five seconds prior to Jesus' final breath on the cross, that person would not be included in the "everyone" for whom Jesus supposedly died.)
To be consistent, option #1 must be rephrased: Jesus died for all the sins except unbelief for everyone except for all the fallen supernatural beings and except for all the people who were already in Hades.
How illogical must we have to be in order to uphold an illogical option when there is a better one out there that is scriptural and logical at the same time?
Friday, February 27, 2009
DOCTRINAL DYSLEXIA
I admit that I suffer from Acute Birthday Dyslexia. It's a common problem that people my age have. Most may not know they have this malady, but once it is identified and defined, then those who have this will readily admit they have it too. It really is not a stigma to have Acute Birthday Dyslexia; in fact, I relish I have this phenomenon, because it is to my advantage, at least in my mental state.
You see, I am 45 and dyslexic.
Later this year I can no longer lay claim to having Acute Birthday Dyslexia. It would prove to be of no benefit whatsoever come September. And by all means, I will be cured of ABD in 2010 and for the four years thereafter.
This is not to make light of those who genuinely suffer from dyslexia, but at least it is not a fatal disease like cancer. Dyslexia does, though, create some unique challenges in life.
There is another kind of dyslexia that often goes unreported and undetected. Sadly, it seems to effect only those who call themselves Christians. It is serious in nature, not because it is fatal; although at times, it can be if taken to the bitter extreme.
What it does, though, is make the Christian life less fulfilling and more problematic. It is Acute Doctrinal Dyslexia.
It all starts with such verses as Acts 13:48, but it goes much farther than that.
"Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
I heard a new label given for a particular breed of churches recently. This new identifier was to warn people to shy away from these type of churches. It goes something like this, "Well, I wouldn't go to that church, if I were you, because after all, it is a P.E. church."
When I first read that, I tried to rack my brain in figuring out what that could signify. P.E.? Could that be a Pragmatic Evangelical church? That would be a very contemporary type church that is willing to try about anything, so long it achieves its purpose of getting more people in the church's front doors.
Or could P.E. stand for something I was accustomed to in my younger years (long before I had ABD), like Physical Education? Could that be a reference to a church that has a family life center and one that really emphasizes physical fitness?
What in the world could a P.E. church be?
I read on to discover that a P.E. church is one that believes in Predestination and Election.
Just when I thought I heard about almost everything. . .
Here's the bombshell. Every New Testament church actually is a P.E. church in some way, and every believer in Christ is a P.E. Christian in one regard or the other. There is no getting around it, unless that church or that Christian does not believe in the Bible, which would then disqualify them from being a church or a Christian in the first place.
Every church and every Christian HAS to believe in predestination and election, because those words (and their many synonyms) are all over the pages of Scripture. Unless we do something what Thomas Jefferson did when he came to the miracles of Jesus and began cutting those portions out of his Bible and we begin crossing out every mention of the P.E. words in our Bibles, then we are "stuck" with believing in P.E. After all, those words did not get there because Martin Luther, Augustine, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, William Carey, George Whitfield, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Dr. Albert Mohler and all other past and present P.E. people decided to put those words in the Bible.
The bugaboo comes down to this then--what does one mean by predestination and election? How does one define those words? It is NOT, "do we believe in those words?", unless we get to pick and choose which words in the Bible we can believe and do not believe.
An earlier blog article tackled this issue from the angle of a multiple choice test. The word "choice" is there by design.
Either we believe in UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION or in CONDITIONAL ELECTION. Granted, the latter is the most popular version today. But when is the last time we are to decide truth based upon popularity and opinion polls, even among Christians?
Conditional Election states it like this: God (or Jesus) allows men to choose on their own if they want to trust Him or not, and after any person makes that critical choice in God's favor, then God chooses to save that person conditioned upon man's earlier choice.
Hershell Hobbs, the beloved Southern Baptist statesman here in Oklahoma, defined election in a memorable way: Election is when God casts a vote for you to be saved; the devil casts a vote for you not to be saved; and you have the tie-breaking vote. That is the doctrine of election, according to Mr. Hobbs.
(Before I proceed, and out of deference to Mr. Hobbs, I must point out two glaring errors in his tidy definition. The first one is the devil has equal say with God. There goes God being the absolute sovereign ruler in the universe, if that is the case. The second error is even more troubling--man has more say than God and the devil!)
For over twenty years in my Christian life, I wholeheartedly adhered to conditional election. It was the safest and most crowded path to be on as a Christian, and even more so as a pastor. So I know how people wrestle with these matters, and I am pretty familiar with all the standard arguments.
If conditional election is true, though, if that is the way in which we should view all those P.E. verses in the Bible, then what do we do with Acts 13:48? How should it then read? Shouldn't it say something like the following?
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as believed, these are the ones God appointed
(or ordained, or elected, or predestined) to eternal life.
But alas, I do not know of one Bible version in any language in the world that puts it that way. Get out your favorite version and read it for yourself.
Those who want Acts 13:48 to say and read what I typed in above, in order for it to square with their understanding of election, suffer from scriptural and doctrinal dyslexia. They got it all backwards. The Bible states "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed", and not the other way around.
If you suffer from Acute Doctrinal Dyslexia, I can relate. It may be hard to admit, and it may be hard to forego. Old habits are hard to die, but there is hope. You don't have to suffer from this forever. There is a cure.
It is one thing to be uninformed or untaught on this, and to even be argumentative to a point on this matter. Been there, done that myself. It is quite another thing for a person to become increasingly angry, hostile and even bitter toward the doctrine of unconditional election, as is taught in Acts 13:48. That extreme case of doctrinal dyslexia can be downright fatal spiritually. (John 8:47)
To throw mud at this scriptural truth is far worse than biting the proverbial hand that feeds you. It is attacking the very Hand that saves you. If it were not for unconditional election, no one would ever believe. And why is that? Because all of us are dead in our sin. (See previous blog on total depravity.)
Just remember this--there is no human being that is not in hell that does not deserve to be there, and there is not a human soul in heaven that deserves to be there.
"My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.
Unless Your grace had called me
And taught my op'ning mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heav'nly glories blind.
My heart knows none above You;
For your rich grace I thirst.
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first."
Hymn 289 in the 1991 Baptist Hymnal,
words of Josiah Conder, 1789-1855
Saved by God's unconditional grace,
Chris
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
How NOT to Grow a Church
My first church in 1981 was a new church start, and in 2003 I came back full circle to where I began, and that is being involved in a brand new church start.
In no way do I consider myself an expert in church starts. If I ever do write a book on church starts, it probably would be titled, How NOT to Grow a Church. The first part of the book would entail all the mistakes I made at my first church, and what I hopefully learned from that experience. The second part of the book would be how my theological shift since 1993 has affected my whole outlook on church starts and church growth in general.
In order to keep this article short, I will skip over the first half of this imaginary book, and delve right into the second part of the book. And to keep it even shorter, I will just major on one or two key elements on How NOT to Grow a Church based upon what I believe is the essential doctrinal foundation for every church, big or small, new or old.
For starters, not all growth is good or should be desired. This is what I would tell all church starters out there. Really, based upon the latest trends and fads in church life, growing a church is not that difficult, if you listen to all the experts in the field. Just do what everybody else is doing, and you can get people to come. Such new church starts are popping up everywhere, and they report pretty phenomenal results numerically.
At my first church, I thought that was what it was all about, and did I ever get depressed when our store-front church in Michigan did not take off like a rocket! I thought it all depended upon me, no matter how piously I prayed otherwise.
Now what I have learned since then is that the pastor's chief function as the shepherd of the sheep is to fill the pulpit and not fill the pews. He fills the pulpit by preaching the Word of God. That is not a novel concept; it is as old as the epistles in the New Testament. It is a novel concept today though. Every pastor desires to see growth, numerically and spiritually, but not growth at the expense of the marginalization of Scriptures.
I have seen churches taken off quickly, and I have seen them also disintegrate just as quickly, even churches built upon a solid foundation. Quick growth can have its lethal components at time.
Success today can only spell failure tomorrow, if we let things go to our heads or if we don't plod along faithfully, even if it means that some will abandon ship along the way.
From day one in our latest church start adventure, I have prayed this: "Lord, You bring the people You want to be here." It is an almost unwritten rule that in every church start, there will be some people who come and go for a variety of reasons, not all of them for bad reasons, but nonetheless they will leave. That is always sad from a pastor's perspective, but since my theological shift in 1993, I can handle it a whole lot better now than what I did back the years following 1981.
In every church start, and now I am speaking in particular those churches who want to start out with a solid doctrinal foundation, there will be curiosity seekers who will attend from time to time. There will be some that float from church to church. There are some who never settle down. There will be some who are still trying to find that perfect church after two, three, five, or ten years of trying. There are those who come to "check you out" and are professional speck inspectors. There are some who want to be the big fish in the small pond. There are those who have had a bad track record in previous churches. Some Calvinists have fangs and claws. Some Calvinists have a sour disposition. Some Calvinists think one must be immersed in pickle juice. Some Calvinists have all head but no heart. Wolves can come dressed up on Sunday mornings wearing wool.
Guess what? Those kind of people mentioned above you don't want to grow your church around. If you do, then you have a bag full of troubles awaiting you down the line. At my first church start, since I believed all growth was good growth, I would accept anybody if they could just hear lightning and see thunder. Now I've come to realize that all that glitters is not gold.
A pastor and a people should be friendly and congenial to all who show up on Sundays. We should never be quick to judge, nor should we act like moral policemen ready to drive people away since they don't measure up to our expectations. We should invite people to our church, and above all else, we should witness to the lost, and we should invite people back once they do attend. We want growth, and we want the Lord to bless His work. At all times we should be people that are known by our love for our Lord and for one another.
Having said and done all that, we still pray with all sincerity, "Lord, You bring the people You want to be here." I say this as advice to all church starters out there, because I know it is tough work, especially if you do it the right way and not the popular way. This will help you from getting discouraged, because maybe at those times when people visit and don't return, and you have done everything you know how to minister to them in Jesus' name, or when certain people decide to leave the church, and it breaks your heart like nothing else, then maybe, just maybe, God is answering that prayer.
And what should we do when God answers prayer? We should say, "Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayer, for You are the Chief Shepherd of the sheep." God truly sees the big picture, when all we see at times is the Kodak moment.
Yours for the growth God desires,
Chris
1 Thessalonians 1:2-10
In no way do I consider myself an expert in church starts. If I ever do write a book on church starts, it probably would be titled, How NOT to Grow a Church. The first part of the book would entail all the mistakes I made at my first church, and what I hopefully learned from that experience. The second part of the book would be how my theological shift since 1993 has affected my whole outlook on church starts and church growth in general.
In order to keep this article short, I will skip over the first half of this imaginary book, and delve right into the second part of the book. And to keep it even shorter, I will just major on one or two key elements on How NOT to Grow a Church based upon what I believe is the essential doctrinal foundation for every church, big or small, new or old.
For starters, not all growth is good or should be desired. This is what I would tell all church starters out there. Really, based upon the latest trends and fads in church life, growing a church is not that difficult, if you listen to all the experts in the field. Just do what everybody else is doing, and you can get people to come. Such new church starts are popping up everywhere, and they report pretty phenomenal results numerically.
At my first church, I thought that was what it was all about, and did I ever get depressed when our store-front church in Michigan did not take off like a rocket! I thought it all depended upon me, no matter how piously I prayed otherwise.
Now what I have learned since then is that the pastor's chief function as the shepherd of the sheep is to fill the pulpit and not fill the pews. He fills the pulpit by preaching the Word of God. That is not a novel concept; it is as old as the epistles in the New Testament. It is a novel concept today though. Every pastor desires to see growth, numerically and spiritually, but not growth at the expense of the marginalization of Scriptures.
I have seen churches taken off quickly, and I have seen them also disintegrate just as quickly, even churches built upon a solid foundation. Quick growth can have its lethal components at time.
Success today can only spell failure tomorrow, if we let things go to our heads or if we don't plod along faithfully, even if it means that some will abandon ship along the way.
From day one in our latest church start adventure, I have prayed this: "Lord, You bring the people You want to be here." It is an almost unwritten rule that in every church start, there will be some people who come and go for a variety of reasons, not all of them for bad reasons, but nonetheless they will leave. That is always sad from a pastor's perspective, but since my theological shift in 1993, I can handle it a whole lot better now than what I did back the years following 1981.
In every church start, and now I am speaking in particular those churches who want to start out with a solid doctrinal foundation, there will be curiosity seekers who will attend from time to time. There will be some that float from church to church. There are some who never settle down. There will be some who are still trying to find that perfect church after two, three, five, or ten years of trying. There are those who come to "check you out" and are professional speck inspectors. There are some who want to be the big fish in the small pond. There are those who have had a bad track record in previous churches. Some Calvinists have fangs and claws. Some Calvinists have a sour disposition. Some Calvinists think one must be immersed in pickle juice. Some Calvinists have all head but no heart. Wolves can come dressed up on Sunday mornings wearing wool.
Guess what? Those kind of people mentioned above you don't want to grow your church around. If you do, then you have a bag full of troubles awaiting you down the line. At my first church start, since I believed all growth was good growth, I would accept anybody if they could just hear lightning and see thunder. Now I've come to realize that all that glitters is not gold.
A pastor and a people should be friendly and congenial to all who show up on Sundays. We should never be quick to judge, nor should we act like moral policemen ready to drive people away since they don't measure up to our expectations. We should invite people to our church, and above all else, we should witness to the lost, and we should invite people back once they do attend. We want growth, and we want the Lord to bless His work. At all times we should be people that are known by our love for our Lord and for one another.
Having said and done all that, we still pray with all sincerity, "Lord, You bring the people You want to be here." I say this as advice to all church starters out there, because I know it is tough work, especially if you do it the right way and not the popular way. This will help you from getting discouraged, because maybe at those times when people visit and don't return, and you have done everything you know how to minister to them in Jesus' name, or when certain people decide to leave the church, and it breaks your heart like nothing else, then maybe, just maybe, God is answering that prayer.
And what should we do when God answers prayer? We should say, "Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayer, for You are the Chief Shepherd of the sheep." God truly sees the big picture, when all we see at times is the Kodak moment.
Yours for the growth God desires,
Chris
1 Thessalonians 1:2-10
Thursday, January 22, 2009
How Inclusive Must We Go?
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)