For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Rom 5:10).Reconciled by the death of His Son, saved by the life of His Son. Good stuff. But did you catch the description of our original condition? "Enemies."
Paul says "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7). The basic condition of sinful humans is not ambivalence or apathy toward God. The Bible describes us as enemies of God. We are hostile to God. There is a war going on here, people, a war between God and the forces of evil. Frankly, if you look around you, it doesn't look so good for the forces of God. Christianity, they say, is on the decline. Much of what passes today for "Christianity" is nothing more than feel-good social gospel with nothing at all of genuine faith or a real relationship with God. Paul says that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12), and, let's face it folks, the struggle looks one-sided far too often.
Imagine, then, a war. No, let's make it something we'd recognize. Hitler's armies are on the move. He is taking over Europe country by country without, it seems, anyone to stop him. He has seized everything from Norway to Italy and pushed the British out of France. There is nothing, it seems, that anyone can do. So the Allies send an emissary to General Rommel with a message. "General Rommel, we have good news for you. The Allies would like you to join our team! All you have to do is surrender all allegiance to the Axis and come on over to our side in London. How's that for good news?!" On the surface, Rommel would be an idiot to agree even with the idea that it is "good news" let alone a wise move. Germany hated the Allies. They were enemies. And Germany seemed unstoppable. So ... tell me again, what exactly was "good news" about that?
That's exactly what we are offering when we share the Gospel with unbelievers. We aren't sharing with people who have no persuasion either way. We're dealing with enemies of God. They aren't on the defensive because they appear to have the position of strength. And our offer, to the rational mind in these conditions, sounds foolish. "We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:23-24). So we are commanded to preach Christ crucified as foolish as it sounds because those who are called will see the power and wisdom of God in it. It is Good News -- just don't expect people to see it that way.
19 comments:
hmmm great post.
A friend of mine and I were discussing the topic. It was his idea, actually. I was hoping to read his take on the topic.
"On the surface, Rommel would be an idiot to agree even with the idea that it is "good news" let alone a wise move."
I don't know but I'm thinking your friend might look at the statement above and say that Rommel is guilty of static thinking. He is looking at the way things are in that moment and making his decision based on that moment. Of course we now have the benefit of hindsight and thinking statically that a world war can't happen again because we have decided to give peace a chance.
The thing however that amazes me when this analogy is applied to man's conflict with his creator is the fact that we have to ignore a very serious reality-a reality with which we will all be confronted-to feel comfortable in our static thinking about the war between God and man. That is the reality that death awaits us all. That death takes us into an unknown that the relativist can only conjecture as to what happens, whether that is non existence, judgment, or walking in bliss hand in hand with Hitler and Rommel, or whatever one wants to imagine that makes himself feel sedated about the static and meaningless situation in which he currently finds himself.
Yes, good post.
I am currently hoping (again) to get my youngest to read Frank Peretti's novels, This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness. I have not read either of them since the 80s but, back then, they had quite an impact on my prayer life. Actually, on my every day life, too. IMHO, they were/are very powerful and empowering books. Someone had highly recommended them but, because I'm usually not a fictional novel reader, I didn't expect to like them anywhere near as much as I did. The night before I was supposed to have the energy to have a 10 lb. baby the next day, I couldn't put the 1st one down until 4:30am. I kept thinking, "Just one more chapter, just one more chapter... THEN I'll go to bed." (Baby came a few days late, so all was cool.)
As most readers of your blog probably know, via some VERY interesting stories, these novels teach about what is going on "behind the scenes" in all of our lives, in the spiritual realm. They illustrate how we believers have been given THE POWER TO DISPATCH angels to the scenes of trouble. Spiritual warfare is taking place ~ fierce battles between angels and demons for the souls of men.
Hopefully my daughter will someday soon also read The Screwtape Letters and Pilgrim's Progress. (Hmmm, as long as she doesn't KNOW just badly I WANT her to read these particular books, she might actually do that. ~ Teenagers you know.)
How wonderfully these 4 books illuminate what usually goes on in darkness as the enemies of God are always relentlessly working at bringing us down to their hopeless depths.
If anyone can inform me of anything in those books that is NOT backed up by God's word, please do, because I've been under the impression for decades that these are books I would like for everyone to read, and the sooner the better. Peretti's first book begins with what you quote today, Stan. Eph. 6:12.
Matt. 12:30 also supports that when people choose not to serve God or give God "the time of day" they are actually in opposition to or are enemies of God. It says, "He who is not with me is against me." Wow. I sure didn't want to believe this when I was younger, but, according to God's word, neutrality is not possible.
Dan: "That is the reality that death awaits us all."
Somehow humans don't often face that reality too often or too well.
Sherry: "If anyone can inform me of anything in those books that is NOT backed up by God's word, please do"
I'm not likely the best one to ask. I was always disturbed by those books because they presented a scenario with an unknown outcome. "Will God win or will the demons? Who knows?" That, of course, isn't a biblical concept.
I have a question. In II Cron. 20:15 it says:
"Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's."
When we surrender to God, does that make us one of his soldiers? Was this a type and shadow of what was to come in our day? I ask because I have always been torn. On the one hand such a scripture makes me wonder if I should eat drink and be merry waiting at rapture bus stop, on the other hand I see all the pain and destruction caused by the Christian losses in public policy and in the church. OF course it is plain to see that I have taken the latter approach but I have not taken it lightly I don't think. Any input?
Dan: "The battle is not yours, but God's."
The inclination here is, "Well, if it's all in God's hands, then I can just go take a break, right?" But we know that's not the case. In the case of Jehoshaphat, he didn't take a break -- he took his people up to watch. But more importantly we're often commanded to take part in what God is doing even though God is doing it. God chooses whom He will save, saves them, and works in them to will and to do His good pleasure, but we're told "Go and make disciples." Huh? Why? Isn't this battle the Lord's? Yeah, but we are His means.
It can always be said, "The battle is not yours, but God's." That doesn't mean that we have no part. We are His most common tool, His regular means. The outcome is always in His hands, but He loves to have us take part in it. So ... take part. (By the way, "Christian losses in public policy" is a mistaken idea from two directions. On one hand, the battle is the Lord's, so they only appear to be losses. On the other hand, we are promised suffering, so the years of "Christian gains in public policy" that we've enjoyed for so long are the anomaly, not the reverse.)
I'm particularly interested on your final comments regarding preaching Christ "crucified". Why do you feel this is important as opposed to, say, preaching Christ's life or how He lived? This piece directly relates to a raging discussion at my blog and your input would be helpful, either here or in a separate post. Thanks in advance.
Marshall Art: "I'm particularly interested on your final comments regarding preaching Christ "crucified". Why do you feel this is important as opposed to, say, preaching Christ's life or how He lived?"
Well, the point in the post is that humans are natural-born enemies of God. Now, most people aren't too offended by the life of Christ. They seem Him as a "good teacher" and a "fine example" and all that. Oh, sure, sure, there are some tough things in there, and without a doubt we need to teach of the life of Christ, but it is not His life that offends. It is His death and resurrection. Since I am a person that tries to allow Scripture to shape my understanding of reality, I see "Christ crucified" as of prime importance when I read things like "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2) and (the almost word-for-word source of my statement) "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). Jesus's sinless life does set Him apart, but it is death and resurrection on our behalf that makes Christianity unique.
Thanks again, Stan. You'd never guess with whom the debate is joined. But the crux is the notion of His death having a causal relationship to our salvation and forgiveness. The other side suggests only grace and implies the crucifixion was unnecessary for our salvation, despite all verses, including those of Christ's own words suggesting His death and resurrection to be His "prime directive" as it were, and the example of His life kind of a bonus, so to speak, but not necessarily the reason for His coming. The 1 Cor 2:2 quote really cements this notion of the importance of His death beyond anything else He did on earth. To me, the whole of the Bible, from Adam on, leads to this event, alludes to it, foreshadows it, produces symbolism of it. It's the main thing, it seems to me, second only to "I am the Lord thy God."
Yes, Marshall Art, I was following that debate. There is, despite his unwillingness to actually state it, an explicit belief that there was no Atonement. Jesus's death was just an example. God doesn't need sin to be paid for. What an archaic idea! How could anyone think that?? Of course, if you look at the teaching of his own group (which he showed me in a similar discussion), they specifically say that Christ's death was the Atonement required to satisfy God's justice. So he denies his own group's beliefs.
Are you referring to "Anabaptists", a word I'm getting really tired of hearing?
It's too bad you didn't enter the fray. Your input might have been how the message might seep into his head. Prolly not, but who knows? At this point, I think he's bailed for good. The original topic covered the nature of progressives to run from debates when all their arguments are answered and then how they'll call us mean. Ironic.
I repent in dust and ashes. Dan Trabue is offended that I suggested that he denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and is dissatisfied that I only said he disagreed and believes that I am cravenly presenting false information, lies, slander, and gossip. Thus, I have deleted those comments. I don't know if the part about Dan being aligned with anabaptists and mennonites was offensive as well, so please forget that as well.
(Please note: The mention of "Dan Trabue" in the previous comment is only to differentiate from "Dan" who commented above, not to imply anything at all untoward toward "Dan Trabue".)
Again, you're gossiping, maligning and misrepresenting. Shame on you.
I am not offended. I don't care what you think of me or what you say.
It's just that I have asked you not to talk about me (ie, gossip), malign my name (slander) or cowardly talk about me and not allow me to defend myself.
You're a punk bitch, son.
God have mercy.
With apologies to my mother who might read the rude comment ...
It appears you've decided not to remove the comments about me, but to at least allow me to defend myself. For that, I am grateful.
I apologize for the harsh language I used with you. Certainly, the curse word was over the top and I am sorry.
In my defense, though, it is a pet peeve of mine (and a noble, Godly one, I believe) that I can't stand to see people misrepresenting others' positions and ESPECIALLY doing so without allowing for that person to correct the misrepresentation.
As I said in our personal emails, I was allowing that you may well have made the misrepresentations in error, but that I was correcting your misunderstanding and expecting that you, as a man of God and a decent human being, would either correct the misunderstand, delete the misrepresentation or give me a chance to clarify myself.
You have come through and for that much, I am grateful.
You said...
Dan Trabue is offended that I suggested that he denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and is dissatisfied that I only said he disagreed and believes that I am cravenly presenting false information, lies, slander, and gossip.
1. I am not offended at the poor representation of my position as a personal affront, but rather, as an affront to Truth. What you said did not, in truth, represent MY position.
a. First off, you claimed that "Dan told me so" about something which I did NOT say. I did NOT tell you so, so for you to suggest that is a false representation of the facts.
b. I am sure you said that as an innocent error - that you THOUGHT I had said so. No problem, mistakes happen.
c. However, after correcting you, you did not remove it or allow me to correct the false representation. That's a problem, from a Christian and moral point of view.
d. The bible is quite clear that those who engage in gossip (definition: rumor or report of an intimate nature - and what is more intimate than one's Christianity and one's belief system?) and slander (definition: defame, to harm the reputation of by libel or slander - and to suggest I believe something other than what I believe is harmful to my name, seems to me) are not acting in a Godly, Christ-like way.
e. I told you, when you asked me to, that I would gladly cease commenting here and I have. But when you start making false representations of my position in a public forum - well, that strikes me as gossip and slander and as such, an affront to the Christ we serve.
2. I did not/have not denied the PS theory of Atonement. I have, in fact, said that it is one of three views of atonement that we anabaptists tend to believe have biblical validity. Saying that I believe something has biblical validity is a way of saying, yes, there is a place for PSA. It is NOT, on the other hand, by any stretch a denial of PSA.
3. I HAVE said that I don't think a literal interpretation of PSA is biblically sound. However, there is certainly a sense in which Jesus died for our sins. Jesus sacrificially came to live amongst and for us, laying down his very life for our sakes. THIS, too, is not a denial of PSA.
4. An analogy: Sometimes it is said of soldiers that they have laid down their lives, paying the price that we might be free. And that is true - in a sense. What doesn't make sense, though, is to say that they literally "paid" their lives to someone to "purchase" freedom - it is an analogy, imagery to explain the sacrifice they made. Same for PSA.
5. THAT is what I believe. It is not a rejection of the PSA, just not taken the same way as you take it.
As famed preacher, Charles Spurgeon said...
“I do not know whether what Adam Smith supposes is correct, that in the garden of Gethsemane Christ did pay more of a price (for our sins) than he did even on the cross; but I am quite convinced that they are very foolish who get to such refinement that they think the atonement was made on the cross and nowhere else at all...”
Thank you for allowing me to correct the misunderstanding.
Post a Comment