Young Iranians are taking to the streets to revolt against the mullahs that control every aspect of daily life in Iran. Maybe the winds of freedom blowing from Iraq have caused many brave Iranians to crave that same liberty which has been denied them for so long. Our President has been very slow and hesitant to speak strongly on behalf of those who are risking their lives. Former Presidents have quickly rallied behind those in different countries who wanted so much to whiff that same air of freedom that we breathe every day in our nation. (One, though, does wonder if that air of freedom we breathe is being more and more contaminated with each and every passing day.)
While all this is going on, what does America's self-appointed pastor decide to do? Rick Warren is scheduled to speak at the annual convention of The Islamic Society of North America, July 3-6, in our nation's capital. What kind of "mosque growth" tips will he give to the conference participants, which include Dr. Muzammil Hussain Siddiqi, an ardent Islamic fascist/terrorist who led a flag burning in Los Angeles where he spat on and cursed the American flag?
Rick Warren has already stated Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it is hardly likely he will preach from John 14:6 at this upcoming conference.
What will Rick say? What can he say to keep up his image of being a world reconciler, a healer among all faiths, the promoter of his own P.E.A.C.E. program? Will he be like the apostle Paul who said, "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth?" Will he be like our Savior when he faced the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate?
Whatever one wants to say about our President, at least he makes no claims of being a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But Rick Warren does make that claim about himself.
I remember very vividly some years ago a prominent Baptist pastor in our state, not far from where I live, came to Rick Warren's defense because Rick was beginning to get some criticism for his wayward beliefs. In the state Baptist paper, this pastor of a megachurch simply responded to a letter by saying that all the naysayers of Rick Warren can easily be discounted because God's hand of blessing was upon Rick due to his church's large growth and his wide influence around the world. The implication in this pastor's defense was that all the critics of Rick Warren were probably pastors of small churches, and therefore they simply were not of the caliber of a Rick Warren.
God was blessing Rick, so we should never question Rick, especially if you and I can't hold a candle to Rick's success.
Since Islam is growing faster around the world than all Purpose-Driven churches put together, then I guess we should conclude that God (or, Allah; it makes no difference, remember?) must be blessing Islam?
So while the Purpose Driven Life pastor is speaking at the annual convention of The Islamic Society of North America in some coming days, what shall we make of the deaths on the streets of Iran that are purposefully driven by a bloody ruthless regime whose "God" some say is no different than the Lord God whom Christians worship and serve?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
What is a Mommy After All?
I searched and searched for just the right poem to read on Mother's Day,
But all seemed so impersonal and just did not express what I really wanted to say.
I'm not that great a poet; rhyme is not my thing,
And to put it to music, everyone knows I can't sing.
So I've come up with my own prose, be it so small,
To answer the fundamental question, "What is a Mommy after all?"
A Mommy from my perspective is a 1001 different things--
Or is it rather a Mommy must do each day a 1001 different things?
Underneath her blouse is hidden a big letter "S"--
Now does that stand for SuperMom, SuperCaring, or SuperTired (or maybe all the above)?
A Mommy can leap over a pile of toys with a single bound,
Wipe a runny nose faster than a speedy toddler,
And with nerves of steel go toe-to-toe with anyone who messes with her kids.
A Mommy cooks, sews, irons, washes dishes, mops floors, changes diapers, dresses the kids,
Takes them to the doctor, shops until she drops, watches Barney for the umpteenth time,
Kisses and mends boo-boos, cleans house, picks up clothes, does the laundry,
Dusts and vacuums, and then by lunch time she's ready to go at it again.
A Mommy does that and more, and yet she finds time for Daddy.
A Mommy is a lighter sleeper than a Daddy,
That's why she always gets up at 2:00 a.m. with a sick child
While Daddy is still fast asleep or pretending to be.
A Mommy is smarter than a Daddy,
That's why a Daddy always tells his child to go ask Mommy.
A Mommy doesn't get paid by the hour,
She gets paid by looking with satisfaction into the eyes of a family God has given her.
A Mommy reads to her children from the most precious Book of all
And tells her children about the most precious Person of all.
A Mommy watches her child take her first step,
And before she can turn around,
She is watching that child take her first step down a wedding aisle. . .
A Mommy knows how to cry a lot.
What would this world be like if God did not give us Mommies?
Children grow up, leave home, start their own families,
Come back to visit for awhile, and always ask for advice.
Yes, children grow up, but Mommies never really do,
Because Mommies are always Mommies.
So I close this little prose with one more bit of rhyme.
To tell you all that a Mommy is I simply don't have the time.
And that's something else special about a Mommy--
She always seems to have the time or take the time,
And how she does it, I will never know!
But to see those little ones grow up full of the love of God, well,
That's worth all the having to get up and go.
So Mommy, I salute you--you really are one of a kind.
Don't worry about falling behind on your housework,
Because your homework is walking behind!
(written in dedication to my wife on Mother's Day, 1994)
But all seemed so impersonal and just did not express what I really wanted to say.
I'm not that great a poet; rhyme is not my thing,
And to put it to music, everyone knows I can't sing.
So I've come up with my own prose, be it so small,
To answer the fundamental question, "What is a Mommy after all?"
A Mommy from my perspective is a 1001 different things--
Or is it rather a Mommy must do each day a 1001 different things?
Underneath her blouse is hidden a big letter "S"--
Now does that stand for SuperMom, SuperCaring, or SuperTired (or maybe all the above)?
A Mommy can leap over a pile of toys with a single bound,
Wipe a runny nose faster than a speedy toddler,
And with nerves of steel go toe-to-toe with anyone who messes with her kids.
A Mommy cooks, sews, irons, washes dishes, mops floors, changes diapers, dresses the kids,
Takes them to the doctor, shops until she drops, watches Barney for the umpteenth time,
Kisses and mends boo-boos, cleans house, picks up clothes, does the laundry,
Dusts and vacuums, and then by lunch time she's ready to go at it again.
A Mommy does that and more, and yet she finds time for Daddy.
A Mommy is a lighter sleeper than a Daddy,
That's why she always gets up at 2:00 a.m. with a sick child
While Daddy is still fast asleep or pretending to be.
A Mommy is smarter than a Daddy,
That's why a Daddy always tells his child to go ask Mommy.
A Mommy doesn't get paid by the hour,
She gets paid by looking with satisfaction into the eyes of a family God has given her.
A Mommy reads to her children from the most precious Book of all
And tells her children about the most precious Person of all.
A Mommy watches her child take her first step,
And before she can turn around,
She is watching that child take her first step down a wedding aisle. . .
A Mommy knows how to cry a lot.
What would this world be like if God did not give us Mommies?
Children grow up, leave home, start their own families,
Come back to visit for awhile, and always ask for advice.
Yes, children grow up, but Mommies never really do,
Because Mommies are always Mommies.
So I close this little prose with one more bit of rhyme.
To tell you all that a Mommy is I simply don't have the time.
And that's something else special about a Mommy--
She always seems to have the time or take the time,
And how she does it, I will never know!
But to see those little ones grow up full of the love of God, well,
That's worth all the having to get up and go.
So Mommy, I salute you--you really are one of a kind.
Don't worry about falling behind on your housework,
Because your homework is walking behind!
(written in dedication to my wife on Mother's Day, 1994)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Scared Stiff?
The swine flu has come, and it must be on par with the bubonic plague to hear some people talk. I'm all for taking necessary precautions. We don't throw caution to the wind. I wash my hands frequently wherever I go somewhere, and that was before the swine flu hit, or whatever it is called by some initials, Hemi, H202, R2D2, or something along those lines. Before you know it, someone will come out with a book, or at least an article, that will identify the swine flu with one of the seven plagues in Revelation. Scaring people to death is a scary business in the U.S.A., but there is more money to be found there than in Chrysler these days.
I don't have the cold, hard data in front of me, but I will take a wild stab at the fact that the chances of one getting seriously hurt or killed in an automobile are 10,000 times greater than anyone contracting the swine flu. So hear me out! Stay out of your cars! If you feel inclined to walk everywhere then, the chances of your getting hurt or killed as a pedestrian, may be at least 5000 times greater than getting the swine flu. Stay off the streets! If you feel inclined to hunker down, stay home, and not go anywhere these days, then your chances of getting hurt or dying at home are probably at least 3000 times greater than getting the swine flu, since most accidents happen at home. In other words, you might as well end your life now. Are you scared enough yet?
All the hoopla over the swine flu has me thinking about Psalm 37, a psalm that our family is slowly (and I mean slooooowly) memorizing together now. We only have covered the first eight verses, but three times in those eight verses we are told not to fret. Once it says it only causes harm when we do. We should not fret even when evil people seem to be getting away with their wicked schemes. Being scared stiff is not exactly a God-fearing option.
Pressing, persistent panic paralyzes plentiful people. That is more than a tongue-twister; it is a mind-bender and soul-killer.
This coming Sunday is Mother's Day when many preachers feel like they ought to say something about the virtues of motherhood. I love mothers, but one of the best advices I ever got as a young preacher is never allow the calendar to dictate what you should preach.
Instead, this coming Sunday I feel it necessary to address this issue of being scared stiff as Christians. Much of the talk of the end times these days borders on scaring people to death and not giving them much comfort. The latest bad news often spells good profits for books that push the panic button. It is high time we end the talk about the end times being a monetary boondoggle that keeps people ever speculating and constantly scared over the latest big news item.
Are you securely saved, or are you scared stiff? Are you scared to death, or are you saved to eternal life? As I read Scripture, the future coming of our Lord is not a blistering hysteria, but it is a blessed hope.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
I don't have the cold, hard data in front of me, but I will take a wild stab at the fact that the chances of one getting seriously hurt or killed in an automobile are 10,000 times greater than anyone contracting the swine flu. So hear me out! Stay out of your cars! If you feel inclined to walk everywhere then, the chances of your getting hurt or killed as a pedestrian, may be at least 5000 times greater than getting the swine flu. Stay off the streets! If you feel inclined to hunker down, stay home, and not go anywhere these days, then your chances of getting hurt or dying at home are probably at least 3000 times greater than getting the swine flu, since most accidents happen at home. In other words, you might as well end your life now. Are you scared enough yet?
All the hoopla over the swine flu has me thinking about Psalm 37, a psalm that our family is slowly (and I mean slooooowly) memorizing together now. We only have covered the first eight verses, but three times in those eight verses we are told not to fret. Once it says it only causes harm when we do. We should not fret even when evil people seem to be getting away with their wicked schemes. Being scared stiff is not exactly a God-fearing option.
Pressing, persistent panic paralyzes plentiful people. That is more than a tongue-twister; it is a mind-bender and soul-killer.
This coming Sunday is Mother's Day when many preachers feel like they ought to say something about the virtues of motherhood. I love mothers, but one of the best advices I ever got as a young preacher is never allow the calendar to dictate what you should preach.
Instead, this coming Sunday I feel it necessary to address this issue of being scared stiff as Christians. Much of the talk of the end times these days borders on scaring people to death and not giving them much comfort. The latest bad news often spells good profits for books that push the panic button. It is high time we end the talk about the end times being a monetary boondoggle that keeps people ever speculating and constantly scared over the latest big news item.
Are you securely saved, or are you scared stiff? Are you scared to death, or are you saved to eternal life? As I read Scripture, the future coming of our Lord is not a blistering hysteria, but it is a blessed hope.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Atonement as a Resounding Success or a Dismal Flop
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)