Senseless
A 15-year-old girl opened fire in a Christian school and killed a teacher and a student, wounding others. She killed herself. They're looking for a motive, trying to find out why, and ready to lay the blame. We know, of course, that firearms are to blame. (Dirty, rotten, Christian school ... believes the Bible. Pray for the government? God is at work? What nonsense!)
"Because We Care"
The Starbucks union has voted to authorize a strike to secure more money for themselves and more expensive coffee for their customers. What says "Because we care" better than that? (Of course, I've never been a Starbucks fan anyway, since their coffee is so expensive. Get ready for more.)
Smishing?
Now the USPS is warning, "If we send you a link to track your package ... don't use it!" What a world!
No Fear
Scripture says as an indictment of humans, "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Psa 36:1; Rom 3:18). A local news item illustrates the problem. Three people have died recently on the freeway because they were out of their vehicles and careless, prompting the authorities to say, "The freeway is no place for pedestrians." Duh! But, like the 57 pedestrian fatalities and 86 injuries on Arizona's state highway system in 2023, humans keep refusing to fear God ... and suffer the consequences.
Your Best Source for Fake News
I knew it! A newly discovered scroll tells about a fourth wise man who brought Jesus a priceless Lego Millennium Falcon. I told you it wasn't just three guys. This next story is a little too close for my comfort. It's about a husband who helpfully points out all the historical inaccuracies of his wife's favorite period drama. Hey, who let them into my house? And then there's this interesting story, combining Biden's pardons and Biden's call for gun laws. The story is about Biden calling for new gun laws he can pardon his son for breaking. Nice juxtaposition of news items, eh?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Saturday, December 21, 2024
Friday, December 20, 2024
What Is This Thing Called "Love"?
"Love is love" they tell us, as if that's helpful, even a proof of something. We all nod, in some way, and agree. Love is a good thing. But ... what is love? "Well," the dictionary tells us, "Love is strong affection for another." And, of course, that's rather simplistic. It's also "attraction based on sexual desire" and "warm attachment" and ... the list goes on. We know there is familial love which binds families together, even if it's not always a warm affection. We know that we might love, say, pizza in a way quite differently than we love, say, our mothers, again differently than we love our spouses. "Love" -- it seems like an actual definition can be really quite elusive.
Love, then, seems to be relative. So how do we clear up the variations? Am I supposed to love God based on sexual desire? Of course not! On strong affection? Well, now I might have something there ... except that "strong affection" cannot be commanded (like in Matt 22:27-40). Is there a "love" that is not primarily predicated on "affection" or "attraction" or "desire"? I think there is. Furthermore, I think all Christians are commanded to do this singular thing ... as a way of life. You see, when God loved, He gave (John 3:16). When Christ loved, He humbled Himself ... to death (Php 2:5-8). Our version of love is self-serving -- you make me feel warmly toward you. God's version of love is self-sacrificing. He set aside Himself in order to give us His best.
Language is a difficult thing. Words are symbols intended to convey thoughts from one mind to another. Unfortunately, the word intended to convey "self-sacrifice for the best of another" has been co-opted to gather what I like best for myself, and we're left without a symbol to convey the grandest notion of them all. The ultimate good we can do is to love on that scale. Not "be true to yourself" or "never let anyone get in the way of your dreams" or even "learn to love yourself." The greatest good we can do is to rely on God and sacrifice self for His glory and the welfare of others. But, of course, that's not ... human, is it? No, it's not. It's divine.
Love, then, seems to be relative. So how do we clear up the variations? Am I supposed to love God based on sexual desire? Of course not! On strong affection? Well, now I might have something there ... except that "strong affection" cannot be commanded (like in Matt 22:27-40). Is there a "love" that is not primarily predicated on "affection" or "attraction" or "desire"? I think there is. Furthermore, I think all Christians are commanded to do this singular thing ... as a way of life. You see, when God loved, He gave (John 3:16). When Christ loved, He humbled Himself ... to death (Php 2:5-8). Our version of love is self-serving -- you make me feel warmly toward you. God's version of love is self-sacrificing. He set aside Himself in order to give us His best.
Language is a difficult thing. Words are symbols intended to convey thoughts from one mind to another. Unfortunately, the word intended to convey "self-sacrifice for the best of another" has been co-opted to gather what I like best for myself, and we're left without a symbol to convey the grandest notion of them all. The ultimate good we can do is to love on that scale. Not "be true to yourself" or "never let anyone get in the way of your dreams" or even "learn to love yourself." The greatest good we can do is to rely on God and sacrifice self for His glory and the welfare of others. But, of course, that's not ... human, is it? No, it's not. It's divine.
Thursday, December 19, 2024
Sacred Sexism
The teacher was talking to the adult Sunday School class about the book of Acts and how, over time, humans have intervened in the interpretation of events to change their significance. He was specifically referring to the story in Acts 19:11-12 where "God was performing extraordinary miracles" including handkerchiefs Paul was carrying that healed sick people. 'When men started messing with it," he said, "they distorted it so much that they now sell 'blessed handkerchiefs' they claim can heal." Now, the teacher was right. The part that really upset me was the comment from one of the female class members. "Yes," she said, "especially men." Apparently, if women had been in charge, these errors would have been avoided, an important lesson for us today.
I consider this syncretism. Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs into something new. It is most common in religions. The most obvious example is Santeria (which, translated, means "the way of the saints"), a primarily Afro-Caribbean religion that combines Roman Catholicism ... with voodoo. Ouch! We, of course, are much more subtle. We don't fall into that error. Oh, no. We only combine modern sexual mores with biblical Christianity and come up with a version that embraces sexual sin as a wonderful thing. In 2020 a poll showed that 57% of Protestants thought sex between unmarried adults was sometimes or always acceptable, and an earlier poll said 54% of Christians were fine with homosexual behavior. Or, in the case above, we see a merging of a firm belief in biblical Christianity with an equally firm grasp on modern Feminism. I've been in churches where the subject is something Paul wrote (like "Wives, submit to your husbands" or "I do not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man") and women have expounded on how Paul seemed to have a bit of misogyny in his writings. Entire denominations have tossed Paul out on his ear over these things, knowing that today's Feminists are much wiser than God's inspired texts. Today, in Bible-believing churches, Christianity is merged with modern social values, and the outcome isn't in harmony with Scripture; it's in opposition.
We can be so foolish sometimes. We often start with "I know what's best" and go from there instead of "God knows what's best" and go from there. In Paul's terms, each of us seems to "think more highly of himself than he ought to think" (Rom 12:3) rather than using sound judgment. Christ doesn't call on us to not think. We are commanded to think better (Rom 12:2), to love the Lord your God with all your mind (Mark 12:30). So we should be very cautious about evaluating God's Word from the perspective of the world's values as if God necessarily conforms to our own sinful thought processes. Remember, "'My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares YHWH. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isa 55:8-9). Syncretism forces human values into God's truth, and He's likely not happy about that.
I consider this syncretism. Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs into something new. It is most common in religions. The most obvious example is Santeria (which, translated, means "the way of the saints"), a primarily Afro-Caribbean religion that combines Roman Catholicism ... with voodoo. Ouch! We, of course, are much more subtle. We don't fall into that error. Oh, no. We only combine modern sexual mores with biblical Christianity and come up with a version that embraces sexual sin as a wonderful thing. In 2020 a poll showed that 57% of Protestants thought sex between unmarried adults was sometimes or always acceptable, and an earlier poll said 54% of Christians were fine with homosexual behavior. Or, in the case above, we see a merging of a firm belief in biblical Christianity with an equally firm grasp on modern Feminism. I've been in churches where the subject is something Paul wrote (like "Wives, submit to your husbands" or "I do not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man") and women have expounded on how Paul seemed to have a bit of misogyny in his writings. Entire denominations have tossed Paul out on his ear over these things, knowing that today's Feminists are much wiser than God's inspired texts. Today, in Bible-believing churches, Christianity is merged with modern social values, and the outcome isn't in harmony with Scripture; it's in opposition.
We can be so foolish sometimes. We often start with "I know what's best" and go from there instead of "God knows what's best" and go from there. In Paul's terms, each of us seems to "think more highly of himself than he ought to think" (Rom 12:3) rather than using sound judgment. Christ doesn't call on us to not think. We are commanded to think better (Rom 12:2), to love the Lord your God with all your mind (Mark 12:30). So we should be very cautious about evaluating God's Word from the perspective of the world's values as if God necessarily conforms to our own sinful thought processes. Remember, "'My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares YHWH. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isa 55:8-9). Syncretism forces human values into God's truth, and He's likely not happy about that.
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
The 12 Days of Christmas
I learned something new today. We've all heard, I expect, about the "12 days of Christmas." You know, that extremely expensive period when "my true love" keeps compounding the gifts he or she gives until I have more maids a-milking and geese a-laying than I could ever possibly need. Okay, okay, that's the song, but what are the "12 days of Christmas"?
Apparently the 12 days of Christmas mark the amount of time Christians believe it took the wise men to travel to Bethlehem. Now, I didn't know that Christians believed that. I can't imagine where the notion that the wise men arrived 12 days after His birth came from. For reasons I don't quite grasp, this is presented as fairly universal among Christians, although the timing varies in different groups. First proclaimed in 567 AD by the Roman Catholic Church, it somehow became part of a lot of churches' traditions. Some assign a saint to be acknowledged on each day. Some see significance on that 12th day (Epiphany). Some assign significance to the gifts in the song as "code" for Christian values (for instance, "3 turtle doves" is code for "the Trinity"), which, of course, is utter nonsense, but still put forth as a good thing.
So, apparently, a not small number (certainly not all) of Christian sects have taken a thoroughly unbiblical (that is, not found in Scripture) tradition and made it "sacred." They expound on the value of such a practice. ("You can use the 12 days to do more personal study, pray, expand the idea of Christmas, etc.") Me? I'm in favor of expanding the awareness and significance of the Incarnation, but I don't need a "sacred tradition" that doesn't come from the Word to do so. I can't quite say whether I find such a practice good or bad, but I see real danger in creating new "sacred" things where God never saw fit to do so. I think ... and this is just me ... I'll just skip that part.
________
Postscript. Did you know that the original words for those 4 birds were not "calling birds"? The original words were "four colley birds," where "colley" referred to "black", a reference to blackbirds. And they think the "five gold rings" referred to the band on a pheasant's neck. Thus, the first seven gifts were birds. Hmmm, fun stuff I never knew.
Apparently the 12 days of Christmas mark the amount of time Christians believe it took the wise men to travel to Bethlehem. Now, I didn't know that Christians believed that. I can't imagine where the notion that the wise men arrived 12 days after His birth came from. For reasons I don't quite grasp, this is presented as fairly universal among Christians, although the timing varies in different groups. First proclaimed in 567 AD by the Roman Catholic Church, it somehow became part of a lot of churches' traditions. Some assign a saint to be acknowledged on each day. Some see significance on that 12th day (Epiphany). Some assign significance to the gifts in the song as "code" for Christian values (for instance, "3 turtle doves" is code for "the Trinity"), which, of course, is utter nonsense, but still put forth as a good thing.
So, apparently, a not small number (certainly not all) of Christian sects have taken a thoroughly unbiblical (that is, not found in Scripture) tradition and made it "sacred." They expound on the value of such a practice. ("You can use the 12 days to do more personal study, pray, expand the idea of Christmas, etc.") Me? I'm in favor of expanding the awareness and significance of the Incarnation, but I don't need a "sacred tradition" that doesn't come from the Word to do so. I can't quite say whether I find such a practice good or bad, but I see real danger in creating new "sacred" things where God never saw fit to do so. I think ... and this is just me ... I'll just skip that part.
________
Postscript. Did you know that the original words for those 4 birds were not "calling birds"? The original words were "four colley birds," where "colley" referred to "black", a reference to blackbirds. And they think the "five gold rings" referred to the band on a pheasant's neck. Thus, the first seven gifts were birds. Hmmm, fun stuff I never knew.
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
Christmas Trees
We love our Christmas trees, don't we? I just read an article that told me that Christmas trees aren't Christian. Now, of course not. They haven't come to a saving relationship with Christ. Okay, I know, that's not what it meant. What they said was that the actual origin of Christmas trees was in pagan tree uses. I love how so many "helpful" folk aren't being helpful.
In truth the story that was originally told on the origin of Christmas trees was around an 8th century monk named Saint Boniface. He was a missionary to Germania (among other places). The story is told of him interrupting a human sacrifice under a "sacred oak" by chopping the tree down to demonstrate it wasn't sacred. The massive oak fell onto a small fir sapling ... which bent, then sprang back up, essentially unharmed. Boniface used it as "the Christ tree" to show how Christ was more powerful than the "sacred oak." And Christmas trees had their origin. Legend has it that Martin Luther (1483-1546) was coming home one night and saw the stars shining through trees. He hurried home and put candles on a tree to show his family the beauty of God's creation. The first indoor decorated tree made the scene in 1605 in Strasbourg, decorated with roses, apples, wafers, and other treats.
There are likely lots of questionable "traditions" we hold around Christmas, Halloween, and such. My point is not that all our traditions are good ones. I simply want to point out that Christmas, as it represents Christ, will be a target of His enemies, and certainly not all Christmas traditions are pagan in origin. I'd venture to say that most aren't ... even though our skeptical world would like to tell you they are. Similar to what Paul wrote, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21).
In truth the story that was originally told on the origin of Christmas trees was around an 8th century monk named Saint Boniface. He was a missionary to Germania (among other places). The story is told of him interrupting a human sacrifice under a "sacred oak" by chopping the tree down to demonstrate it wasn't sacred. The massive oak fell onto a small fir sapling ... which bent, then sprang back up, essentially unharmed. Boniface used it as "the Christ tree" to show how Christ was more powerful than the "sacred oak." And Christmas trees had their origin. Legend has it that Martin Luther (1483-1546) was coming home one night and saw the stars shining through trees. He hurried home and put candles on a tree to show his family the beauty of God's creation. The first indoor decorated tree made the scene in 1605 in Strasbourg, decorated with roses, apples, wafers, and other treats.
There are likely lots of questionable "traditions" we hold around Christmas, Halloween, and such. My point is not that all our traditions are good ones. I simply want to point out that Christmas, as it represents Christ, will be a target of His enemies, and certainly not all Christmas traditions are pagan in origin. I'd venture to say that most aren't ... even though our skeptical world would like to tell you they are. Similar to what Paul wrote, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21).
Monday, December 16, 2024
What's Wrong With This World?
There are school shootings and murders, wars and rumors of wars, real conspiracies and fake conspiracies, politics, poverty, disease, illegal activities of all sorts, and a sort of insanity that makes people not even recognize that biology determines sex. For starters. Someone was asking, "Why don't the Jews recognize Jesus as their Messiah?" So many problems. Loneliness, depression, drug use, gambling addiction, divorce, dysfunctional families ...so many problems. What's wrong with this world?
I guess it depends on who you ask. The scientists and the doctors and the psychologists and the politicians all have lots of ideas. It's their upbringing or their downfall, their poverty or their wealth, not enough love as a child or too much pampering. Why don't the Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Good question. And, of course, to my really broad question they would all answer, "Well, lots of different things." I don't think so. I think this whole range of problems boils down to one simple answer.
I guess it depends on who you ask. The scientists and the doctors and the psychologists and the politicians all have lots of ideas. It's their upbringing or their downfall, their poverty or their wealth, not enough love as a child or too much pampering. Why don't the Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Good question. And, of course, to my really broad question they would all answer, "Well, lots of different things." I don't think so. I think this whole range of problems boils down to one simple answer.
The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)Same answer. Humans are deceived. They're blinded. They can't see the problem. But ... they think they do. The real problem is here.
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:3-4)
Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Rom 1:20-23)We can muddle about with new strategies and treatments, new programs and penalties, new analysis and new approaches, but the truth is sin rots the brain. And we've volunteered for it. The good news is that there is a solution -- Christ. He can and does remedy these problems. So we can try our short-term band-aids to fix our world, but Christ is the real answer to the problem. We should probably pass that on.
Sunday, December 15, 2024
Another World
Paul wrote, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Whatever the full meaning of that text is, it is abundantly clear that Natural Man has a problem with ... God. That's consistent with "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). Again, Natural Man -- the human who is only flesh and not spiritually alive -- has a problem with God. In fact, "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:19-21). Is it any surprise, then, that believers live in ... a different world?
We live in a physical world with physical laws that govern our existence. We analyze our world and our lives through these laws and come to rational conclusions. The problem is ... we're not quite accurate. That's because we typically ignore God's very real effect in the world. Take, for instance, the whole "10 Commandments" controversy in Oklahoma. A legislator in Oklahoma wants to make it mandatory that schools post the 10 Commandments in classrooms. "No, no," the anti-theists say, "that's religious coercion." "Don't be silly," the other side argues, "the 10 Commandments are pretty universal in all religions ... even atheism." And the middle-of-the-road crowd says, "Why bother? Kids will never read them anyway." They may be right ... in a world without God. But we don't live in a world without God, and God can certainly use any available means to reach a student's heart. I'm not arguing the point for the Oklahoma bill. I'm simply giving an example of our modern secular Christianity that often limits itself to the world's rules without regard for "but God."
We recently struggled with "What if Harris gets elected??" versus "What if Trump gets elected??" as if our world hung on the outcome of that election. To the secular world, it did. We believers live in another world. We live in a world governed by a Sovereign God who can and frequently does use anything at all to accomplish His will, quite often in unexpected ways. I read one time of a homeless guy who pulled a small booklet out of the trash and ripped out a page to use for rolling a cigarette. He caught sight of the text -- John 3:16 -- and gave his life to Christ, because we are not limited to the vagaries of our world. We are governed by God, who can and will frequently surprise us.
We live in a physical world with physical laws that govern our existence. We analyze our world and our lives through these laws and come to rational conclusions. The problem is ... we're not quite accurate. That's because we typically ignore God's very real effect in the world. Take, for instance, the whole "10 Commandments" controversy in Oklahoma. A legislator in Oklahoma wants to make it mandatory that schools post the 10 Commandments in classrooms. "No, no," the anti-theists say, "that's religious coercion." "Don't be silly," the other side argues, "the 10 Commandments are pretty universal in all religions ... even atheism." And the middle-of-the-road crowd says, "Why bother? Kids will never read them anyway." They may be right ... in a world without God. But we don't live in a world without God, and God can certainly use any available means to reach a student's heart. I'm not arguing the point for the Oklahoma bill. I'm simply giving an example of our modern secular Christianity that often limits itself to the world's rules without regard for "but God."
We recently struggled with "What if Harris gets elected??" versus "What if Trump gets elected??" as if our world hung on the outcome of that election. To the secular world, it did. We believers live in another world. We live in a world governed by a Sovereign God who can and frequently does use anything at all to accomplish His will, quite often in unexpected ways. I read one time of a homeless guy who pulled a small booklet out of the trash and ripped out a page to use for rolling a cigarette. He caught sight of the text -- John 3:16 -- and gave his life to Christ, because we are not limited to the vagaries of our world. We are governed by God, who can and will frequently surprise us.
Saturday, December 14, 2024
News Weakly - 12/14/2024
Toppled
The story is that Syrian President al-Assad is now a former Syrian president. An Islamist group took the capital of Syria. We'll see how this plays out -- they claim to want to oust Hezbollah, for instance -- but, as bad as al-Assad was, this cannot be better.
Who Needs a Constitution Anyway?
Trump is vowing to end birthright citizenship when he takes the reins. The 14th Amendment insures that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, but Trump plans to end that. Forget about that doggone constitutional amendment; we want what we want and don't care about the ramifications.
Our Culture of Death
With this latest election cycle, we've proven again that we're a culture of death by voting in a whole new set of rules expanding abortion. "Oh, no," they tell us, "that's not a culture of death." Oh, yeah? Well why are they calling Luigi Mangione "a hero"? You know, the guy charged with killing the CEO of United Healthcare? When murder over discontent is "heroic", we have absolutely arrived at a culture of death. When will it stop? That will take a miracle.
Of Course!
The news item says Democrats are divided on whether or not they'll show up for Trump's inauguration. Well, of course! I mean, some will need to be there, while others are gathering to storm the Capitol ... right? Oh, don't go getting all self-righteous. Dems are not less likely to complain about election results than the GOP.
I Say Collision, You Say Collusion
An American Airlines flight departing New York had to return after reporting a bird strike to one of their engines. Democrats are pretty sure it was in collusion with Trump.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Apparently the latest polls place UHC CEO assassin, Luigi Mangione, as the leading contender for the Democratic primary in 2028. Not everyone agrees. Barack Obama is urging, "Let's not get carried away and start assassinating everyone responsible for the healthcare crisis." Fauci, apparently, is nervous, too. In other news, Wine Enthusiast magazine has named Kamala Harris as "Person of the Year." I don't ... well ... okay.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The story is that Syrian President al-Assad is now a former Syrian president. An Islamist group took the capital of Syria. We'll see how this plays out -- they claim to want to oust Hezbollah, for instance -- but, as bad as al-Assad was, this cannot be better.
Who Needs a Constitution Anyway?
Trump is vowing to end birthright citizenship when he takes the reins. The 14th Amendment insures that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States, but Trump plans to end that. Forget about that doggone constitutional amendment; we want what we want and don't care about the ramifications.
Our Culture of Death
With this latest election cycle, we've proven again that we're a culture of death by voting in a whole new set of rules expanding abortion. "Oh, no," they tell us, "that's not a culture of death." Oh, yeah? Well why are they calling Luigi Mangione "a hero"? You know, the guy charged with killing the CEO of United Healthcare? When murder over discontent is "heroic", we have absolutely arrived at a culture of death. When will it stop? That will take a miracle.
Of Course!
The news item says Democrats are divided on whether or not they'll show up for Trump's inauguration. Well, of course! I mean, some will need to be there, while others are gathering to storm the Capitol ... right? Oh, don't go getting all self-righteous. Dems are not less likely to complain about election results than the GOP.
I Say Collision, You Say Collusion
An American Airlines flight departing New York had to return after reporting a bird strike to one of their engines. Democrats are pretty sure it was in collusion with Trump.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Apparently the latest polls place UHC CEO assassin, Luigi Mangione, as the leading contender for the Democratic primary in 2028. Not everyone agrees. Barack Obama is urging, "Let's not get carried away and start assassinating everyone responsible for the healthcare crisis." Fauci, apparently, is nervous, too. In other news, Wine Enthusiast magazine has named Kamala Harris as "Person of the Year." I don't ... well ... okay.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, December 13, 2024
What Do You Want for Christmas?
It has always struck me as odd that we give Christmas gifts to each other. Oh, sure, it's because the wise men gave gifts, but, still. Imagine this birthday party. "Thanks for inviting me to Your party, Jesus. Oh, no, these gifts aren't for you. They're for the other people you invited." Really strange. So I got to wondering. If we were actually going to celebrate Christ's birthday, what do you suppose His birthday wish list would look like?
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) It seems obvious, then, that Jesus would like my obedience. Easy, right? I'm doing it every day, right? Well, actually, no. When a lawyer asked Jesus about the great commandment, He said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:37-40). If all the commandments rest on those two, I both have a good roadmap and a clear indication that I'm not obeying His commandments. Jesus repeatedly called on people to follow Him. He told His disciples, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Jesus ... gulp ... would like me to take up a cross and follow. He wants me to ... lose my life (Matt 16:25). Of course, it isn't as bleak as it sounds. He wants me to have an abundant life (John 10:10). But, what He wants from me is death to self. He wants us to believe (John 6:29). He wants us to repent (Matt 4:17). He wants ... a lot of things. It looks like He actually has quite a list. And those are just a few of them.
We often have this saying. "It's the thought that counts." Jesus was always concerned about the heart (e.g., Matt 15:16-20). Perhaps the best gift we could give Jesus for His birthday would be our hearts, submitted, worshiping, ready to obey. A renewed heart can love Him, and loving Him produces obedience. The little drummer boy gave his talent. I think I'll give Him my heart ... over and over.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) It seems obvious, then, that Jesus would like my obedience. Easy, right? I'm doing it every day, right? Well, actually, no. When a lawyer asked Jesus about the great commandment, He said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:37-40). If all the commandments rest on those two, I both have a good roadmap and a clear indication that I'm not obeying His commandments. Jesus repeatedly called on people to follow Him. He told His disciples, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Jesus ... gulp ... would like me to take up a cross and follow. He wants me to ... lose my life (Matt 16:25). Of course, it isn't as bleak as it sounds. He wants me to have an abundant life (John 10:10). But, what He wants from me is death to self. He wants us to believe (John 6:29). He wants us to repent (Matt 4:17). He wants ... a lot of things. It looks like He actually has quite a list. And those are just a few of them.
We often have this saying. "It's the thought that counts." Jesus was always concerned about the heart (e.g., Matt 15:16-20). Perhaps the best gift we could give Jesus for His birthday would be our hearts, submitted, worshiping, ready to obey. A renewed heart can love Him, and loving Him produces obedience. The little drummer boy gave his talent. I think I'll give Him my heart ... over and over.
Thursday, December 12, 2024
O Come, Emmanuel
"Emmanuel," "Immanuel," potato, potahto. The word means "God with us" any way you spell it (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23). "God with us." An amazing name ... but, think about it. What does that mean? I mean, God is omnipresent. Isn't He always with us? So what exactly does this mean? In Matthew 7, Jesus speaks of those who come to Him saying, "Lord, Lord, look what we've done for You." He tells them to depart because "I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). It's a startling thing to say, since the Son of God knows everyone and everything. So this must be something ... else, something more. In the same way, "Immanuel" -- God with us -- must be something more.
The term is explained in Matthew's version of Christ's Incarnation. It seems obvious, then, that the Incarnation -- God become flesh -- is in view here. God is always with us in spirit, but at that point in time He became flesh and dwelt among us. John wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14) "God with us" includes His becoming flesh and, in that flesh, showing God's glory in a brand new way. John also wrote, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "God with us" includes this gift from God, His Son -- His Son that offers eternal life to those who believe. Building on that idea, Paul wrote, "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). "God with us" is a new relationship with God in which He supplies all things, making us "more than conquerors" (Rom 8:37).Paul also wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20). That's another way in which "God with us" is new -- "Christ in me." This notion is our "hope of glory" (Col 1:27). In it, we know that all things work together for good because ... get this ... God is shaping us into the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29), a previously unknown possibility.
We've all likely heard that "Immanuel" means "God with us." I've offered a few ways in which is it much more than a simply omnipresent God. He has ... personalized His presence. He has bridged the gap and given His people peace (Rom 5:1). In fact, Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). This "God with us," then is extraordinary. Not mere presence, but genuine relationship. And an amazing relationship if you think about it.
The term is explained in Matthew's version of Christ's Incarnation. It seems obvious, then, that the Incarnation -- God become flesh -- is in view here. God is always with us in spirit, but at that point in time He became flesh and dwelt among us. John wrote, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14) "God with us" includes His becoming flesh and, in that flesh, showing God's glory in a brand new way. John also wrote, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "God with us" includes this gift from God, His Son -- His Son that offers eternal life to those who believe. Building on that idea, Paul wrote, "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). "God with us" is a new relationship with God in which He supplies all things, making us "more than conquerors" (Rom 8:37).Paul also wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20). That's another way in which "God with us" is new -- "Christ in me." This notion is our "hope of glory" (Col 1:27). In it, we know that all things work together for good because ... get this ... God is shaping us into the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29), a previously unknown possibility.
We've all likely heard that "Immanuel" means "God with us." I've offered a few ways in which is it much more than a simply omnipresent God. He has ... personalized His presence. He has bridged the gap and given His people peace (Rom 5:1). In fact, Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). This "God with us," then is extraordinary. Not mere presence, but genuine relationship. And an amazing relationship if you think about it.
Wednesday, December 11, 2024
Is It ... Really?
Who said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?" Well, Jesus said it, of course. Interestingly, the only record of that is ... in Acts. It's a quote from Paul quoting Jesus (
Acts 20:35). Apparently Luke filled Paul in on some things Jesus said that weren't recorded in the Gospels. And, of course, we've all heard it. But ... is it true?
I think, in some ways, this principle is most easily seen, at least on the surface, at Christmas time. We all know instinctively, I think, how much fun it is to give to people we love at Christmas. My wife loves baking up special treats for friends and family. She knows that this one likes her fudge best and that one really enjoys her snickerdoodles and ... well, you get it. When I was working she'd even bake up a plate of all kinds of goodies for my coworkers just because she wanted to. That's the idea. Giving gives the giver joy. Giving, in fact, provides lots of benefits to the giver. We get to practice obedience. We get to lean more heavily on the Lord to supply. We get to imitate God (John 3:16; James 1:17). Jesus came to give Himself (Matt 20:28); we imitate Him in giving to others. We know that the Lord loves a cheerful giver (1 Cor 9:7); that's not limited to a church offering. We get to give glory to God (Matt 5:16). There are lots of good things for the one who gives.
So, why is it so hard for us to live that way? Why is it that Christmas seems the exception, and the rest of the time we're primarily scrabbling for what's ours? Solomon warned that those who love abundance will never be satisfied (Ecc 5:10), but we're not paying attention. Jesus called us to a cross, and through that death to self, to Himself (Mark 8:34), and we cling to ... stuff ... to our own detriment. Paul told the Philippians to share the heart of Christ (Php 2:5-8). Perhaps we can use this time as a catalyst for change, a jumping off point, if you will. We have songs singing about Christmas year round. Perhaps we should be aiming to sacrifice self and give to others ... year round. Imagine a life, predicated on Christ's sacrifice of self, dependent on His provision for all of our existence, lived outwardly toward those around us, giving to them, sharing Christ in a real way with them, glorifying God in a very real way with them. It's really a magnificent image. Is it possible?
I think, in some ways, this principle is most easily seen, at least on the surface, at Christmas time. We all know instinctively, I think, how much fun it is to give to people we love at Christmas. My wife loves baking up special treats for friends and family. She knows that this one likes her fudge best and that one really enjoys her snickerdoodles and ... well, you get it. When I was working she'd even bake up a plate of all kinds of goodies for my coworkers just because she wanted to. That's the idea. Giving gives the giver joy. Giving, in fact, provides lots of benefits to the giver. We get to practice obedience. We get to lean more heavily on the Lord to supply. We get to imitate God (John 3:16; James 1:17). Jesus came to give Himself (Matt 20:28); we imitate Him in giving to others. We know that the Lord loves a cheerful giver (1 Cor 9:7); that's not limited to a church offering. We get to give glory to God (Matt 5:16). There are lots of good things for the one who gives.
So, why is it so hard for us to live that way? Why is it that Christmas seems the exception, and the rest of the time we're primarily scrabbling for what's ours? Solomon warned that those who love abundance will never be satisfied (Ecc 5:10), but we're not paying attention. Jesus called us to a cross, and through that death to self, to Himself (Mark 8:34), and we cling to ... stuff ... to our own detriment. Paul told the Philippians to share the heart of Christ (Php 2:5-8). Perhaps we can use this time as a catalyst for change, a jumping off point, if you will. We have songs singing about Christmas year round. Perhaps we should be aiming to sacrifice self and give to others ... year round. Imagine a life, predicated on Christ's sacrifice of self, dependent on His provision for all of our existence, lived outwardly toward those around us, giving to them, sharing Christ in a real way with them, glorifying God in a very real way with them. It's really a magnificent image. Is it possible?
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Santa Christ or Satan Claws?
Our familiar Christmas character, Santa Claus, has a lesser known origin. Saint Nicholas (270-343AD) was the Bishop of Myra. He had a reputation for generosity, the reason for his modern "job" of Santa Claus. There are many tales of his kindness, even if they can't be verified. Nicholas of Bari was present at the Council of Nicaea (325AD) for the debate over the Arian heresy. Arius argued that Jesus was not God, but was a created being. The story goes that Nicholas lost his temper and either slapped or punched Arius for his heresy, and was imprisoned for it. I think I would have liked Nicholas for his fervor for true doctrine. But, what about his "protégé," our modern Santa Claus? Nicholas sought to be ... saintly, a good model of Christ. Is Santa such a model?
Santa, as we all know, knows who's naughty and nice. Jesus knows, too. Check. He rewards the nice kids with gifts. Well, actually, Jesus forgives the sins of those who repent and believe, so ... not quite check. Santa threatens to put coal in the stockings of the bad kids ... but never, ever does it. Jesus promises judgment to those who don't repent, and certainly carries it out in the end. Absolutely not check. Our modern Santa is a white-haired "deity" kind of being who is "kindly" and certainly not judgmental. Santa acknowledges "naughty" as well as "nice," but ends up putting all kids in the "nice" category. Definitely not just. His primary job is to give everyone (well, at least kids) what they want -- a divine butler, if you will. This character is so far from Christ as to suggest something ... devious, deceitful ... dare I say ... satanic.
Our Santa Claus, then, modeled after a true believer and follower of Christ, offers Satan's version of a god who is only nice and never judgmental. This version tries very hard to give everyone what they want and, well, darn it all, sometimes just can't. A more destructive image of a "saint" could probably not be found. I would definitely put our modern "Santa" in the category of "Satan Claws" rather than anything Christ-like.
Santa, as we all know, knows who's naughty and nice. Jesus knows, too. Check. He rewards the nice kids with gifts. Well, actually, Jesus forgives the sins of those who repent and believe, so ... not quite check. Santa threatens to put coal in the stockings of the bad kids ... but never, ever does it. Jesus promises judgment to those who don't repent, and certainly carries it out in the end. Absolutely not check. Our modern Santa is a white-haired "deity" kind of being who is "kindly" and certainly not judgmental. Santa acknowledges "naughty" as well as "nice," but ends up putting all kids in the "nice" category. Definitely not just. His primary job is to give everyone (well, at least kids) what they want -- a divine butler, if you will. This character is so far from Christ as to suggest something ... devious, deceitful ... dare I say ... satanic.
Our Santa Claus, then, modeled after a true believer and follower of Christ, offers Satan's version of a god who is only nice and never judgmental. This version tries very hard to give everyone what they want and, well, darn it all, sometimes just can't. A more destructive image of a "saint" could probably not be found. I would definitely put our modern "Santa" in the category of "Satan Claws" rather than anything Christ-like.
Monday, December 09, 2024
The Submitted Marriage
One of those crazy things Scripture offers is the command to "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21). Now, we're Americans. We submit to no one. "My body, my choice" is not just a woman thing. We all believe that. So the command to submit is fiercely denied, even by Christians. Laid alongside the reported "50% divorce rate" that we believe is true, it's heartbreaking. You see, God wasn't foolish when He passed that along to Paul to write. God was a genius.
The opening statement of the idea is to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Note the singular motivation: "reverence for Christ." "No!" so many Christians say. That's especially at the next verse, Paul's first example. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "Absolutely not!" unbelievers and believers alike declare. It's short-sighted, actually. We believe that we are autonomous, that our welfare and happiness is ours to obtain, and we should submit to no one. The text tells us to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ, and wives to submit to husbands as to the Lord. "Set aside your autonomy and allow God to work." Fewer complain about the next example. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:25-27). That's because they don't see the submission in it. Look at it; it's mind-boggling. "Husbands, love your wives." "Yeah, so what? That's not submission." It is when you see how husbands are to love their wives. "As Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." In submission terms, husbands are required to give self up. It's mind-boggling for Paul. He says, "This mystery is profound" (Eph 5:32), but it's an image of Christ and the church.
Why do I say God is a genius in this? If you have two people submitting to one another in this fashion, a marriage cannot fail. It is, first, based on submission to Christ, reverence for Christ. Second, the reason for every divorce is that one or both spouses weren't getting what they felt they needed, but a marriage built on submitting to each other sets self aside. Divorce is impossible if spouses are mutually submitting in this way, giving self and expecting God to supply. See? God is pretty wily. But, of course, having the mind of Christ (Php 2:5-8) doesn't come naturally. It is necessary since we are called to die with Christ, but it isn't natural. It's just right.
The opening statement of the idea is to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Note the singular motivation: "reverence for Christ." "No!" so many Christians say. That's especially at the next verse, Paul's first example. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "Absolutely not!" unbelievers and believers alike declare. It's short-sighted, actually. We believe that we are autonomous, that our welfare and happiness is ours to obtain, and we should submit to no one. The text tells us to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ, and wives to submit to husbands as to the Lord. "Set aside your autonomy and allow God to work." Fewer complain about the next example. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:25-27). That's because they don't see the submission in it. Look at it; it's mind-boggling. "Husbands, love your wives." "Yeah, so what? That's not submission." It is when you see how husbands are to love their wives. "As Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." In submission terms, husbands are required to give self up. It's mind-boggling for Paul. He says, "This mystery is profound" (Eph 5:32), but it's an image of Christ and the church.
Why do I say God is a genius in this? If you have two people submitting to one another in this fashion, a marriage cannot fail. It is, first, based on submission to Christ, reverence for Christ. Second, the reason for every divorce is that one or both spouses weren't getting what they felt they needed, but a marriage built on submitting to each other sets self aside. Divorce is impossible if spouses are mutually submitting in this way, giving self and expecting God to supply. See? God is pretty wily. But, of course, having the mind of Christ (Php 2:5-8) doesn't come naturally. It is necessary since we are called to die with Christ, but it isn't natural. It's just right.
Sunday, December 08, 2024
Jesus on the Topic of God
There are what we sometimes term "Red-Letter Christians" who claim, "I only believe the words of Jesus." "These," they assure us, "are the words of God, not necessarily all that other stuff." Ironically, these so-called "words of Jesus" come from ... the Bible that they are trying to relegate to "somewhat useful" at best. "But," they assure us, "Jesus gives us a much friendlier version of God than the rest of the Scriptures." And you know what they're saying. I mean, that Old Testament God with all His "smiting" and "fire and brimstone" and all was really pretty tough. Jesus gave us a gracious God who forgives everyone and it's all good. Or ... did He?
Jesus was probably the best example of the concept of "a relationship with God." He spoke of Him as "Father" to a Jewish society afraid to refer to Him as "God" (and they got upset with Him for saying it). He spoke of a forgiving God. In His teaching on how to pray, He said "forgive us our debts" (Matt 6:12) showing that God forgives debts. Now, hang on a moment. He did say "debts," didn't He? Yes, He did. So Jesus was claiming that we owe God, that our sin results in a debt to God that we must pay. God is our ... Creditor, as it were. Jesus, in fact, went on to say, "If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:15). Apparently the Father is not an all-forgiving God ... from the lips of Jesus. Which is why Jesus said He came to make ransom for sinners (Matt 20:28). Interestingly, in that text He did not say "for all," but, specifically, "for many." Again, not a universal forgiveness. Jesus presented some other pretty startling things about the Father. For instance, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Now, if Jesus was saying, "And the Father grants it to everybody," the statement would be meaningless. Jesus was explaining why some don't believe (John 6:64). They don't believe because the Father hasn't granted it. Or how about Jesus's prayer in Matthew? He prayed, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants" (Matt 11:25). Wait, what? The Father hid things? The text there, by the way, follows Jesus's harshest words for the unrepentant places He had visited, assuring them that it would be horrible for them in the day of judgment (Matt 11:20-24). Nope, not the all-forgiving God. A God that demands payment for debt incurred. A God that does not grant access to just anyone. And Jesus didn't learn that kind of thing from Calvin. He learned it ... from the Father. Jesus spoke famously about God's love ... specifically for those who believe (John 3:16). Remember, that "so" in that text is not a quantity -- "so much" -- but a quality -- "in this way". God loved the world in such a way that those who believe will have everlasting life.
It turns out, then, that our "Red-Letter Christian" types aren't entirely honest. They only accept the stuff from Jesus that they like, that they approve of, and reject even Jesus when He says what they don't like. Which, of course, makes them the final arbiter of truth for us all. Not quite so superior a position, is it?
Jesus was probably the best example of the concept of "a relationship with God." He spoke of Him as "Father" to a Jewish society afraid to refer to Him as "God" (and they got upset with Him for saying it). He spoke of a forgiving God. In His teaching on how to pray, He said "forgive us our debts" (Matt 6:12) showing that God forgives debts. Now, hang on a moment. He did say "debts," didn't He? Yes, He did. So Jesus was claiming that we owe God, that our sin results in a debt to God that we must pay. God is our ... Creditor, as it were. Jesus, in fact, went on to say, "If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:15). Apparently the Father is not an all-forgiving God ... from the lips of Jesus. Which is why Jesus said He came to make ransom for sinners (Matt 20:28). Interestingly, in that text He did not say "for all," but, specifically, "for many." Again, not a universal forgiveness. Jesus presented some other pretty startling things about the Father. For instance, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Now, if Jesus was saying, "And the Father grants it to everybody," the statement would be meaningless. Jesus was explaining why some don't believe (John 6:64). They don't believe because the Father hasn't granted it. Or how about Jesus's prayer in Matthew? He prayed, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants" (Matt 11:25). Wait, what? The Father hid things? The text there, by the way, follows Jesus's harshest words for the unrepentant places He had visited, assuring them that it would be horrible for them in the day of judgment (Matt 11:20-24). Nope, not the all-forgiving God. A God that demands payment for debt incurred. A God that does not grant access to just anyone. And Jesus didn't learn that kind of thing from Calvin. He learned it ... from the Father. Jesus spoke famously about God's love ... specifically for those who believe (John 3:16). Remember, that "so" in that text is not a quantity -- "so much" -- but a quality -- "in this way". God loved the world in such a way that those who believe will have everlasting life.
It turns out, then, that our "Red-Letter Christian" types aren't entirely honest. They only accept the stuff from Jesus that they like, that they approve of, and reject even Jesus when He says what they don't like. Which, of course, makes them the final arbiter of truth for us all. Not quite so superior a position, is it?
Saturday, December 07, 2024
News Weakly - 12/7/2024
Of Course He Did
It seems hardly news that Joe Biden would reverse his promise and pardon his son, Hunter. Of course he did. It's what fathers do -- help their kids avoid the consequences of their actions. Well, not good fathers, but ... you know what I mean.
And Now For Something Completely Different
I'm sorry. I know this is my News Weakly, but this was the slowest news week I've seen ... in years. You have, above, the only newsworthy story I could find all week. So I thought I'd take a break today and give you a timely quiz. A Christmas quiz.
1. What were the words that the angels sang to the shepherds?
2. How many wise men showed up at the manger?
3. Why did Mary have the baby in a stable?
4. What was the date of Jesus's birth?
Well, that's enough, I suppose. There are actually quite a few myths around Christmas that we've built and embraced over the centuries. The Catholics are sure Joseph was much older than Mary, but that's because they're certain he never ... consummated their marriage. ("Virgin" Mary, remember?) We all know that Mary rode into Bethlehem on a donkey ... but there's no mention in Scripture. We don't even know if Mary gave birth the night they arrived in Bethlehem. Just another tradition. But the birth of the Son of God, God Incarnate, to a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit, is no myth, no mere tradition, and no small thing. "God with us" is no myth. Despite our efforts to cloud things with myths and traditions, His birth remains an amazing, true story, even without Santa Claus.
________
It seems hardly news that Joe Biden would reverse his promise and pardon his son, Hunter. Of course he did. It's what fathers do -- help their kids avoid the consequences of their actions. Well, not good fathers, but ... you know what I mean.
And Now For Something Completely Different
I'm sorry. I know this is my News Weakly, but this was the slowest news week I've seen ... in years. You have, above, the only newsworthy story I could find all week. So I thought I'd take a break today and give you a timely quiz. A Christmas quiz.
1. What were the words that the angels sang to the shepherds?
2. How many wise men showed up at the manger?
3. Why did Mary have the baby in a stable?
4. What was the date of Jesus's birth?
Well, that's enough, I suppose. There are actually quite a few myths around Christmas that we've built and embraced over the centuries. The Catholics are sure Joseph was much older than Mary, but that's because they're certain he never ... consummated their marriage. ("Virgin" Mary, remember?) We all know that Mary rode into Bethlehem on a donkey ... but there's no mention in Scripture. We don't even know if Mary gave birth the night they arrived in Bethlehem. Just another tradition. But the birth of the Son of God, God Incarnate, to a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit, is no myth, no mere tradition, and no small thing. "God with us" is no myth. Despite our efforts to cloud things with myths and traditions, His birth remains an amazing, true story, even without Santa Claus.
________
1 We all know it was something like "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" (Luke 2:13-14). (I know, that's not what the song says, but that's the most accurate translation.) Of course, according to Scripture, they didn't sing at all. They spoke. But, hey, that doesn't feel so exciting, does it?
2 Sorry, that was a double trick question. First, we don't know how many wise men there were. Scripture lists three ... gifts (Matt 2:11), not how many men. And, of course, the text in Matthew suggests they showed up after Jesus's birth; maybe up to two years after (Matt 2:7,16).
3 As we all know from song and the King James Bible, there was "no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Interestingly, there is a serious question about that. The word is literally "guest chamber." In fact, it's the word Jesus used when He sent His disciples to prepare for the Passover. They were to inquire about the "guest chamber" (Luke 22:11). Houses in those days often included a lower floor where the animals were kept and an upper floor where the people lived. They would have an "upper room" in it for guests. It is very unlikely that Joseph and Mary went to an "inn" when they went to where their family was. They likely went to a family home, where the "guest chamber" was already taken, so the family put them up downstairs. Mary was likely not alone with Joseph for the birth; she probably had family with her. Not a significant fact, but interesting.
4 Okay, this one is a doozy. While some uncritically affirm He was born on December 25, more savvy folk assure us He was not. Couldn't have been. Not the time for shepherds, being the dead of winter. Worse, they say, we celebrate December 25 because it was a pagan holiday for the birth of the Roman Sun god. Christianity, they say, ripped it from its pagan roots to make it a Christian celebration of the birth of the Son of God. Turns out that may also be false. Recent scholars have suggested that the early church believed Jesus was born on December 25, not because of Saturnalia, but because of the belief that a person's date of conception was also their date of death. Jesus died on Passover, which they believed was March 25 of that year. Calculating 9 months from there, Jesus would have been born on or around December 25. Nothing to do with Saturnalia. Was Jesus born on December 25th? Most will tell you no. Some say it's possible. The Bible doesn't say. So, in the end, we don't know. But don't leap too quickly to the "pagan roots" theory of Christmas. That may just be a trick from Satan.
2 Sorry, that was a double trick question. First, we don't know how many wise men there were. Scripture lists three ... gifts (Matt 2:11), not how many men. And, of course, the text in Matthew suggests they showed up after Jesus's birth; maybe up to two years after (Matt 2:7,16).
3 As we all know from song and the King James Bible, there was "no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Interestingly, there is a serious question about that. The word is literally "guest chamber." In fact, it's the word Jesus used when He sent His disciples to prepare for the Passover. They were to inquire about the "guest chamber" (Luke 22:11). Houses in those days often included a lower floor where the animals were kept and an upper floor where the people lived. They would have an "upper room" in it for guests. It is very unlikely that Joseph and Mary went to an "inn" when they went to where their family was. They likely went to a family home, where the "guest chamber" was already taken, so the family put them up downstairs. Mary was likely not alone with Joseph for the birth; she probably had family with her. Not a significant fact, but interesting.
4 Okay, this one is a doozy. While some uncritically affirm He was born on December 25, more savvy folk assure us He was not. Couldn't have been. Not the time for shepherds, being the dead of winter. Worse, they say, we celebrate December 25 because it was a pagan holiday for the birth of the Roman Sun god. Christianity, they say, ripped it from its pagan roots to make it a Christian celebration of the birth of the Son of God. Turns out that may also be false. Recent scholars have suggested that the early church believed Jesus was born on December 25, not because of Saturnalia, but because of the belief that a person's date of conception was also their date of death. Jesus died on Passover, which they believed was March 25 of that year. Calculating 9 months from there, Jesus would have been born on or around December 25. Nothing to do with Saturnalia. Was Jesus born on December 25th? Most will tell you no. Some say it's possible. The Bible doesn't say. So, in the end, we don't know. But don't leap too quickly to the "pagan roots" theory of Christmas. That may just be a trick from Satan.
Friday, December 06, 2024
Christmas Mystery
My wife loves Christmas time. She decorates all the time in various seasons, but this one is the mother of all decorations. She loves Christmas movies and Christmas songs. I try to hold her back a little. "Can we at least wait until after Thanksgiving?" So on December 1st, she fired up the Christmas music. "It's legal now," she said. And it has been on since. It's interesting to me the variety of people singing Christmas music. Obviously there are Christian artists, but all manner of secular artists do, too. I mean, Barbra Streisand, Jewish, has a Christmas album (at least one). Frank Sinatra, whose life in many way epitomized the anti-Christian lifestyle, has Christmas albums. Modern rappers and rockers have Christmas albums. The Pentatonix sing Silent Night on their last Christmas album, for pity sake. It seems like every major artist has at least one Christmas album with at least one, honest-to-goodness praise song of Christ who came. What's up with that? So many whose lives oppose anything like Christ sing praises to Christ at Christmas when you'd think they'd prefer to not even acknowledge Christmas at all. What's that all about?
It is, I believe, the story of eternity. Since the beginning -- Adam and Eve in the garden -- mankind has been at war with God. It has been said, in fact, that the most offensive verse in the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Paul says, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). So Scripture says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). And, yet, God is not dead. Why? Well, I think the problem is not God. It's His authority. It's His Sovereignty. We do not want to be told what to do. Like recalcitrant children, we shake our fists in His face and yell, "You're not the boss of me!" And, yet ... we desperately want what He has to offer. So we hang up plaques that say, "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13) and "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace ..." (Gal 5:22). Because, who doesn't want love, joy, peace? Who doesn't want hope? So, even as sinful beings, we don't want God, but we sure want what He has to offer.
I think Christmas appeals to the secular world because the secular world, deep down, wants the peace and love and joy that God offers. They don't want it on His terms, but they want it. So they'll sing Christmas songs about peace and joy and love and overlook the claims of Christ as redeemer because, well, they want what He offers. At times it bothers me. "That's not yours. Give it back." But I finally settle on Paul's approach. "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice" (Php 1:18). These dupes find themselves singing incredible truths, perhaps for a buck or for their wish for what God has to offer without the God who offers it. But they're singing truths, and God is able to use that. All truth is God's truth, so I will rejoice even if it comes from the mouth of a pagan ... or even a rapper.
It is, I believe, the story of eternity. Since the beginning -- Adam and Eve in the garden -- mankind has been at war with God. It has been said, in fact, that the most offensive verse in the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Paul says, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). So Scripture says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). And, yet, God is not dead. Why? Well, I think the problem is not God. It's His authority. It's His Sovereignty. We do not want to be told what to do. Like recalcitrant children, we shake our fists in His face and yell, "You're not the boss of me!" And, yet ... we desperately want what He has to offer. So we hang up plaques that say, "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13) and "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace ..." (Gal 5:22). Because, who doesn't want love, joy, peace? Who doesn't want hope? So, even as sinful beings, we don't want God, but we sure want what He has to offer.
I think Christmas appeals to the secular world because the secular world, deep down, wants the peace and love and joy that God offers. They don't want it on His terms, but they want it. So they'll sing Christmas songs about peace and joy and love and overlook the claims of Christ as redeemer because, well, they want what He offers. At times it bothers me. "That's not yours. Give it back." But I finally settle on Paul's approach. "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice" (Php 1:18). These dupes find themselves singing incredible truths, perhaps for a buck or for their wish for what God has to offer without the God who offers it. But they're singing truths, and God is able to use that. All truth is God's truth, so I will rejoice even if it comes from the mouth of a pagan ... or even a rapper.
Thursday, December 05, 2024
Walk This Way
In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul lays out some ways in which we should interact with our fellow believers. One is, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Eph 4:32). Notice that it's one sentence and, therefore, one thought. Be kind. By that we mean be tenderhearted. That looks like forgiving each other. How? As you have been forgiven. A singular idea.
It seems to be a foreign idea to us sometimes. Why? Think of it backward. The "kind" that Paul is writing about is forgiveness. That is, be kind to people who have wronged you in some way. First and foremost, forgive them. Easier said than done. "Be kind to people who have wronged us? By forgiving them? That's not natural." No, it's not. It's the product of a forgiven person. "As God in Christ forgave you." The wrong is acknowledged, not ignored. This "forgiveness" isn't "Oh, that's okay. It wasn't that bad." It's "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). (It's interesting in that text that it says Joseph "comforted them and spoke kindly to them" (Gen 50:21).) Our own forgiveness should produce a tender heart. "I know. I've been there. I've done wrong. I've needed forgiveness." This kind of forgiveness is self-less -- setting self aside. Instead, it seeks to be kind.
Imagine that. Imagine what it would look like if we, as followers of Christ, made a practice of showing kindness by forgiving those who wrong us. Imagine what the world would see if we embraced those who abused us and said, "I forgive you." Imagine the impact on individuals, on groups, on onlookers. But, we're humans, and that kind of kindness -- predicated on forgiveness -- is foreign. Unless, of course, it's someone who has been forgiven much (Luke 7:47).
It seems to be a foreign idea to us sometimes. Why? Think of it backward. The "kind" that Paul is writing about is forgiveness. That is, be kind to people who have wronged you in some way. First and foremost, forgive them. Easier said than done. "Be kind to people who have wronged us? By forgiving them? That's not natural." No, it's not. It's the product of a forgiven person. "As God in Christ forgave you." The wrong is acknowledged, not ignored. This "forgiveness" isn't "Oh, that's okay. It wasn't that bad." It's "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). (It's interesting in that text that it says Joseph "comforted them and spoke kindly to them" (Gen 50:21).) Our own forgiveness should produce a tender heart. "I know. I've been there. I've done wrong. I've needed forgiveness." This kind of forgiveness is self-less -- setting self aside. Instead, it seeks to be kind.
Imagine that. Imagine what it would look like if we, as followers of Christ, made a practice of showing kindness by forgiving those who wrong us. Imagine what the world would see if we embraced those who abused us and said, "I forgive you." Imagine the impact on individuals, on groups, on onlookers. But, we're humans, and that kind of kindness -- predicated on forgiveness -- is foreign. Unless, of course, it's someone who has been forgiven much (Luke 7:47).
Wednesday, December 04, 2024
Counterfeit Christianity
For as long as there has been the Church, there has been a counterfeit. Most of the New Testament was written to address counterfeits, false teachings, error. So it's not a new thing that we have counterfeit Christianity today. And it shouldn't be a surprise. Today's world doesn't know what to think when they hear the word, "Christian." Most Christians don't know what to think. Is it a moral code? Is it a political movement? Is it a social justice structure? Maybe it's just "What I was born into." If you look at our entertainment media, you'll see Christianity portrayed in all sorts of ways ... that aren't Christianity. It's a group of pinched-faced people out to snuff out fun. It's a gathering of slack-jawed idiots that have created a belief system for themselves that is false, but makes them feel better. It's a namby-pamby group who roll with the tides of common culture as if there's some reality to it ... but proving by their rolling that there isn't.
Christianity is one thing. It's faith in Christ's death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8) by which He paid for sin (Matt 20:28; Gal 3:13) and saved those who repent and believe. It is fundamentally a changed heart (2 Cor 5:17), a new birth (John 3:3-15). It isn't a moral system; that's a product of this new birth. It isn't a political movement or a social welfare system. That's an outcome, but not the definition. It isn't something we do (Eph 2:8-9), but it does include works as a result (Eph 2:10). It isn't actions, although the faith that makes it so is demonstrated in deeds (James 2:14-20).
In the end, Christianity is a new person living a new life by a new Spirit, a product of Christ's work and God's ongoing efforts. It is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col 1:27). Let's not get lost in counterfeits. What we need -- what the world needs -- is changed hearts, not better rules, behavior, or movements. We need to do the things commanded by God, but in such a way that God gets the glory (Matt 5:16). We don't act as Christians. We are Christians ... by new birth.
Christianity is one thing. It's faith in Christ's death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8) by which He paid for sin (Matt 20:28; Gal 3:13) and saved those who repent and believe. It is fundamentally a changed heart (2 Cor 5:17), a new birth (John 3:3-15). It isn't a moral system; that's a product of this new birth. It isn't a political movement or a social welfare system. That's an outcome, but not the definition. It isn't something we do (Eph 2:8-9), but it does include works as a result (Eph 2:10). It isn't actions, although the faith that makes it so is demonstrated in deeds (James 2:14-20).
In the end, Christianity is a new person living a new life by a new Spirit, a product of Christ's work and God's ongoing efforts. It is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col 1:27). Let's not get lost in counterfeits. What we need -- what the world needs -- is changed hearts, not better rules, behavior, or movements. We need to do the things commanded by God, but in such a way that God gets the glory (Matt 5:16). We don't act as Christians. We are Christians ... by new birth.
Tuesday, December 03, 2024
Paul's Letter ... to Us
Hey! Look what I found! A verse about modern Christianity ... in a letter to an ancient Christian church.
It's everywhere today, in and out of the church. Truthfully, as evidenced by the fact that the text came from a letter written to a first century congregation, it has been around a lot longer than just today. And, as timeless as the warning is, people who call themselves Christians glibly reject it, build their "faith" on their philosophies and human traditions, and, effectively, ignore Christ and His Word. Because, after all, they know better, right?
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)Oh, we are so there, aren't we? We've decided that we probably know what's best. That old Bible thing? It's okay, as far as it goes. But, for instance, when the children's song says, "Jesus loves me; the Bible tells me so," voices in the church cry, "Oh, no, don't go there. We don't need the Bible for that." When someone tries to use Scripture to defend the faith, apologists argue, "Don't go there. That won't work." When discussions about Scripture pull out things, quite clear, that stand in opposition to current views -- LGBT, women in the church, submission in marriage, you name it -- there are plenty of loud voices that shout it down. "Don't go there." Why? "Because, we know better. Our philosophy, our modern traditions, our current perspectives are superior to that old book." And they build their case on what the text calls "the elemental spirits of the world." Certainly not on Christ (John 17:17).
It's everywhere today, in and out of the church. Truthfully, as evidenced by the fact that the text came from a letter written to a first century congregation, it has been around a lot longer than just today. And, as timeless as the warning is, people who call themselves Christians glibly reject it, build their "faith" on their philosophies and human traditions, and, effectively, ignore Christ and His Word. Because, after all, they know better, right?
Monday, December 02, 2024
A Scary Verse
You've heard this verse before. In fact, it's quite popular in altar calls. Jesus had John write the text to the church at Laodicea.
The text was written to the church at Laodicea (Rev 3:14). Laodicea had a problem. They believed, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" when Jesus believed, "you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked" (Rev 3:17). Quite a contrast. Jesus warned, "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And then comes verse 20. Jesus was not standing at the door of hearts. Jesus was standing outside the door to the church at Laodicea. They were all inside, thinking they were fine, when they desperately needed help. The "Christian" church left Christ out.
Some have argued that the 7 letters to the 7 churches (Rev 2-3) are historically arranged -- a picture of the church through history. I think that's a stretch. I think all 7 church-types exist today. But the Laodicean church is certainly present today. Self-styled Christians have gathered and locked Christ out, thinking they're doing what's right. They think they're okay. They're not. They think they're on track. They're not. For too many churches with "Christian" applied these days, Jesus is standing outside, asking to be let in. That's frightening. There are churches and there are people who are moving along, quite confident that they are fine -- they need nothing -- and they are without Christ. Don't be that guy.
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me. (Rev 3:20)I can hear the question now. "That's your 'scary verse'?" That's because it is almost always used as an invitation. "Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart. Won't you let Him in?" Which isn't scary at all ... but that's not what this verse is saying.
The text was written to the church at Laodicea (Rev 3:14). Laodicea had a problem. They believed, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" when Jesus believed, "you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked" (Rev 3:17). Quite a contrast. Jesus warned, "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And then comes verse 20. Jesus was not standing at the door of hearts. Jesus was standing outside the door to the church at Laodicea. They were all inside, thinking they were fine, when they desperately needed help. The "Christian" church left Christ out.
Some have argued that the 7 letters to the 7 churches (Rev 2-3) are historically arranged -- a picture of the church through history. I think that's a stretch. I think all 7 church-types exist today. But the Laodicean church is certainly present today. Self-styled Christians have gathered and locked Christ out, thinking they're doing what's right. They think they're okay. They're not. They think they're on track. They're not. For too many churches with "Christian" applied these days, Jesus is standing outside, asking to be let in. That's frightening. There are churches and there are people who are moving along, quite confident that they are fine -- they need nothing -- and they are without Christ. Don't be that guy.
Sunday, December 01, 2024
My God is Better Than Yours
We humans are a competitive breed. We even compete in this game we call "one-upmanship". You know how that works. We hear out your story or claim or, in Christian circles, even your woes, and then, we follow it with ... something better. I remember in church groups when we shared testimonies about how sinful we were, but God saved us. Each one got worse and worse. Or our prayer requests. "Please pray for my brother. He's depressed." "Please pray for my friend. She has cancer." "Please pray for my mother. She has to raise me." Okay, well, you get the idea. We just like to win, it seems, even in our trials.
We even compete in our versions of God. "God to me is a great God because He is nice to me." "My God is better because He healed me from an illness." "My God is better because He loves me even when I don't." "My God is better because He saved me from sin." "Your God isn't so great. My God saves everyone." And we're back at it. Only, we don't get to do that here. God declares Himself to us. He speaks in His Word. He discloses Himself in His creation and in the Bible. He even claims things about Himself that would disqualify Himself from being "good" according to our measure. "I am YHWH, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am YHWH, who does all these things" (Isa 45:6-7). "Wait ... hang on ... He creates calamity? Oh, no, that's not my God." "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). "Oh, no, God doesn't do that. That's not my God." "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). "I'm sorry; that's just crazy. That is not my God. My God is better than that."
When will we learn? When will we let God speak for Himself? When will we submit to Him? When will we acknowledge the massive arrogance of telling God what's good and not, what's better, and whether or not we will allow Him to be who He claims to be? My God? He's the one, true God. He's best, not because of my evaluation, but because He is who He says He is and I have nothing more to offer and nothing to take away.
We even compete in our versions of God. "God to me is a great God because He is nice to me." "My God is better because He healed me from an illness." "My God is better because He loves me even when I don't." "My God is better because He saved me from sin." "Your God isn't so great. My God saves everyone." And we're back at it. Only, we don't get to do that here. God declares Himself to us. He speaks in His Word. He discloses Himself in His creation and in the Bible. He even claims things about Himself that would disqualify Himself from being "good" according to our measure. "I am YHWH, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am YHWH, who does all these things" (Isa 45:6-7). "Wait ... hang on ... He creates calamity? Oh, no, that's not my God." "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). "Oh, no, God doesn't do that. That's not my God." "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). "I'm sorry; that's just crazy. That is not my God. My God is better than that."
When will we learn? When will we let God speak for Himself? When will we submit to Him? When will we acknowledge the massive arrogance of telling God what's good and not, what's better, and whether or not we will allow Him to be who He claims to be? My God? He's the one, true God. He's best, not because of my evaluation, but because He is who He says He is and I have nothing more to offer and nothing to take away.
Saturday, November 30, 2024
News Weakly - 11/30/2024
Injustice
China released 3 Americans detained in China in a prisoner swap. Seems to me a "prisoner swap" is a fundamental injustice. Either justice demands imprisonment ... or it doesn't. "Well, if it serves another purpose, then it's okay" is not justice.
A Swift Kick
U.S. forces struck an Iranian-aligned militia group in Syria this week. Because shooting at militia groups is easy. And, after all, haven't we seen how effective it is to blow up radical groups ... who don't really care about losing their lives?
Not a Bad Transition
"Transition" used to refer to any change from one thing to another. Lately, it is mostly a reference to "transitioning" from one gender to another. Now even the White House is transitioning. Oh, wait! That's actually a real transition. Never mind.
Unrelated News
In an effort to win favor for their cause, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. They were sure to urge the crowd, "Don't celebrate genocide!" which, as we all know, is the primary purpose of Thanksgiving. I mean ... what kind of stupid is that? To be fair, most protesters seem to think that angering people not involved in their cause is the best way to get them on board, but ...
California ... Need I Say More?
They're at it again. An owner of an oilfield in Los Angeles County is suing California because California, essentially, has opted to ban him from pumping oil out of his property. As we all know, the government always knows what's best for us, even if it puts people out of business, removes freedoms, locks them in their homes, and who knows what else? Whatever it takes, California aims for a better world ... under their one-world government.
Fake News You Can Trust
Why is there so much on the Bee about Kamala and drinking? Hmm. On the Middle East, they're reporting that Israel has asked Hezbollah to wait by their pagers for a message on the ceasefire. And, going along with the "California" item above, Trump is proposing a 25% tariff on goods imported from California.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
China released 3 Americans detained in China in a prisoner swap. Seems to me a "prisoner swap" is a fundamental injustice. Either justice demands imprisonment ... or it doesn't. "Well, if it serves another purpose, then it's okay" is not justice.
A Swift Kick
U.S. forces struck an Iranian-aligned militia group in Syria this week. Because shooting at militia groups is easy. And, after all, haven't we seen how effective it is to blow up radical groups ... who don't really care about losing their lives?
Not a Bad Transition
"Transition" used to refer to any change from one thing to another. Lately, it is mostly a reference to "transitioning" from one gender to another. Now even the White House is transitioning. Oh, wait! That's actually a real transition. Never mind.
Unrelated News
In an effort to win favor for their cause, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. They were sure to urge the crowd, "Don't celebrate genocide!" which, as we all know, is the primary purpose of Thanksgiving. I mean ... what kind of stupid is that? To be fair, most protesters seem to think that angering people not involved in their cause is the best way to get them on board, but ...
California ... Need I Say More?
They're at it again. An owner of an oilfield in Los Angeles County is suing California because California, essentially, has opted to ban him from pumping oil out of his property. As we all know, the government always knows what's best for us, even if it puts people out of business, removes freedoms, locks them in their homes, and who knows what else? Whatever it takes, California aims for a better world ... under their one-world government.
Fake News You Can Trust
Why is there so much on the Bee about Kamala and drinking? Hmm. On the Middle East, they're reporting that Israel has asked Hezbollah to wait by their pagers for a message on the ceasefire. And, going along with the "California" item above, Trump is proposing a 25% tariff on goods imported from California.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, November 29, 2024
"Did God Say ...?"
The recent series on "TULIP," culminating, of course, with "P" -- the perseverance of the saints -- has stirred up all sorts of questions and challenges. There are two main objections to the notion that, if we are once born again, we can never become ... unborn again. One is, "I don't think so. It is a clear violation of human reasoning." Let's set that one aside for the moment and agree to go with Scripture on this. The other is, "But, doesn't the Bible say ...?" There are, we must all acknowledge, texts that seem to say you can lose your salvation. The aim, then, must be to align the two. That is, we must figure out a way to understand the "You can't lose your salvation" texts with the "You can lose your salvation" texts and not "against.".
If you're thinking I'm about to do that for you, I'm afraid that's beyond the scope of my writing. It would be a long piece, indeed. Perhaps there is an easier approach. There is a technique in which one goes from the known to the unknown, from the explicit to the implicit. Maybe that will help. So, we read, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Option 1: Paul was wrong. He had a false sense of confidence ... in God's abilities. That's obviously not possible if Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says ... which seems like the only option. Or we can look at Jesus when He said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). Option 1: Jesus didn't mean "No one is able to snatch them out of My hand." It was hyperbole. He meant "almost no one." But, if not "no one," who can? "Well, at least every believer can snatch themselves out of His hand." That's a very large "no one." If it was hyperbole, it was poor hyperbole. Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says. Or we can ponder what he meant when Jude wrote, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25) Option 1: Jude said God is able to keep you from stumbling. That doesn't mean He actually would. No, you can stumble and He won't interfere. But ... what's the point if God does not do it? Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says.
Just three examples. The texts regarding God keeping His own, from "foreknown" all the way to "glorified" (Rom 8:29-30), leave no room for our interference. They are explicit, clear, and unequivocal. If, therefore, we know that God will complete what He began, doesn't lose any, and is able to keep His own from stumbling, we know that salvation cannot be lost because God is keeping us. If we accept that premise from these (and many more) texts, then I would contend that the "warning" texts aren't as clear or explicit, and it is entirely possible, even necessary to see how they fit in with what we know about God keeping His own rather than arguing that He does not, even cannot.
If you're thinking I'm about to do that for you, I'm afraid that's beyond the scope of my writing. It would be a long piece, indeed. Perhaps there is an easier approach. There is a technique in which one goes from the known to the unknown, from the explicit to the implicit. Maybe that will help. So, we read, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Option 1: Paul was wrong. He had a false sense of confidence ... in God's abilities. That's obviously not possible if Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says ... which seems like the only option. Or we can look at Jesus when He said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). Option 1: Jesus didn't mean "No one is able to snatch them out of My hand." It was hyperbole. He meant "almost no one." But, if not "no one," who can? "Well, at least every believer can snatch themselves out of His hand." That's a very large "no one." If it was hyperbole, it was poor hyperbole. Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says. Or we can ponder what he meant when Jude wrote, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25) Option 1: Jude said God is able to keep you from stumbling. That doesn't mean He actually would. No, you can stumble and He won't interfere. But ... what's the point if God does not do it? Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says.
Just three examples. The texts regarding God keeping His own, from "foreknown" all the way to "glorified" (Rom 8:29-30), leave no room for our interference. They are explicit, clear, and unequivocal. If, therefore, we know that God will complete what He began, doesn't lose any, and is able to keep His own from stumbling, we know that salvation cannot be lost because God is keeping us. If we accept that premise from these (and many more) texts, then I would contend that the "warning" texts aren't as clear or explicit, and it is entirely possible, even necessary to see how they fit in with what we know about God keeping His own rather than arguing that He does not, even cannot.
Thursday, November 28, 2024
Thanksgiving, 2024
I wrote up an entry for Thanksgiving Day earlier and was all set to go with it. It was primarily Scriptures on giving thanks. (Go figure.) Then I started ruminating on some of the Scriptures I had listed. One of them caught my attention, and I decided to write a different entry. Here it is.
There are lots of biblical injunctions to give thanks (1 Thess 5:18; Psa 100:4; Php 4:6; Col 3:15, 17; Col 4:2; etc., etc.). One that stood out to me, though, was
Lots of texts command us to give thanks, and I can think of at least one that warns of what happens if we don't (Rom 1:21). This one, however, tells us why. "Give thanks to YHWH," it says. That is a command. Then it says "for." That's a reason. Why should we give thanks to God? Because He is good. It's a simple statement of fact, yet it is broad. "He is good." How good? Paul wrote that "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Broad. James wrote, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). "Every good gift" is from God. That's good. James also said, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds" because God is in that, too, and it's for our good (James 1:2-4). Give thanks to God, then, because He is that good. The verse isn't done. It commands us to give thanks and it tells why -- He is good. That is followed by another "for." The psalmist has an explanation of the reason He is good: "His steadfast love endures forever." That, dear readers, is stunning. He has chosen to set His love on us, not because we are magnificent creatures. We are not. We are, at the outset, enemies of God (Rom 5:10; 8:7). God chooses to set His steadfast love on us ... forever. For that reason, He is good. For that reason He is good to us. Because of His steadfast love, He makes everything that happens to us work out for good. Because of His steadfast love, He provides every good thing. Because of His steadfast love, He makes every painful thing serve His purposes for our best.
The world has mostly forgotten Who we are giving thanks to today. It's God. We believers know why we're giving thanks to Him today ... and every other day. He is good. He is love. His steadfast love never fails, so He is always good to us. Give thanks. God knows we have every reason to do so.
There are lots of biblical injunctions to give thanks (1 Thess 5:18; Psa 100:4; Php 4:6; Col 3:15, 17; Col 4:2; etc., etc.). One that stood out to me, though, was
Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever. (Psa 107:1; Psa 136:1)It is, on the surface, just like all the others, but ... I see something more, something different.
Lots of texts command us to give thanks, and I can think of at least one that warns of what happens if we don't (Rom 1:21). This one, however, tells us why. "Give thanks to YHWH," it says. That is a command. Then it says "for." That's a reason. Why should we give thanks to God? Because He is good. It's a simple statement of fact, yet it is broad. "He is good." How good? Paul wrote that "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Broad. James wrote, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). "Every good gift" is from God. That's good. James also said, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds" because God is in that, too, and it's for our good (James 1:2-4). Give thanks to God, then, because He is that good. The verse isn't done. It commands us to give thanks and it tells why -- He is good. That is followed by another "for." The psalmist has an explanation of the reason He is good: "His steadfast love endures forever." That, dear readers, is stunning. He has chosen to set His love on us, not because we are magnificent creatures. We are not. We are, at the outset, enemies of God (Rom 5:10; 8:7). God chooses to set His steadfast love on us ... forever. For that reason, He is good. For that reason He is good to us. Because of His steadfast love, He makes everything that happens to us work out for good. Because of His steadfast love, He provides every good thing. Because of His steadfast love, He makes every painful thing serve His purposes for our best.
The world has mostly forgotten Who we are giving thanks to today. It's God. We believers know why we're giving thanks to Him today ... and every other day. He is good. He is love. His steadfast love never fails, so He is always good to us. Give thanks. God knows we have every reason to do so.
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
In Essentials, Unity
The pastor preached about "essentials." He wanted us to be sure that we're majoring on the "essentials" and not on the "non-essentials." I mulled over the term. What constitutes "essentials"? I said last week that doctrines of "TULIP" were not "essentials." By that I meant I can (and do) still fellowship with Arminians (partial or full) even though I think their version is wrong. So what are we talking about?
There are "cardinal" doctrines and "peripheral" doctrines. There are fundamental truths, without which we do not have a Christian faith, and there are other doctrines that don't affect salvation. A saying often (wrongly) attributed to Augustine says, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." What is the difference? Paul spoke of matters "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3). There are certain beliefs that, if they are false, Christianity is false. These are the "essentials." Note, it's not whether you believe them; it's whether they are true. For instance, God claims to be the only God (Deut 6:4). Paul claims the death and resurrection of Christ are "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3-7). He says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). That's what I'm talking about. If it is not true that Christ rose from the dead, your salvation does not exist. That is, it doesn't matter if you believe it's true or not. Is it true? These are the things that must be true if Christianity is to be true. These and others. Christ is God (Php 2:6-11). Jesus was God incarnate -- God in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Salvation is by faith through grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-10). Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). The trustworthiness of Scripture (John 17:17; 1 Tim 3:16-17). These are essential truths without which Christ is of any value, faith is of any use, and salvation is available to anyone.
Scripture talks about other things. For instance, Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). The principle of Christian Liberty allows for personal convictions regarding non-essential things. There is very little in eschatology that requires agreement in order to be saved. There is room for disagreement on some things. However, with a faithful adherence to Scripture and a willingness to abide by God's Word, much of these "gray areas" go away when we interpret Scripture with Scripture and let God be true though every man a liar.
There are "cardinal" doctrines and "peripheral" doctrines. There are fundamental truths, without which we do not have a Christian faith, and there are other doctrines that don't affect salvation. A saying often (wrongly) attributed to Augustine says, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." What is the difference? Paul spoke of matters "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3). There are certain beliefs that, if they are false, Christianity is false. These are the "essentials." Note, it's not whether you believe them; it's whether they are true. For instance, God claims to be the only God (Deut 6:4). Paul claims the death and resurrection of Christ are "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3-7). He says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). That's what I'm talking about. If it is not true that Christ rose from the dead, your salvation does not exist. That is, it doesn't matter if you believe it's true or not. Is it true? These are the things that must be true if Christianity is to be true. These and others. Christ is God (Php 2:6-11). Jesus was God incarnate -- God in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Salvation is by faith through grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-10). Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). The trustworthiness of Scripture (John 17:17; 1 Tim 3:16-17). These are essential truths without which Christ is of any value, faith is of any use, and salvation is available to anyone.
Scripture talks about other things. For instance, Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). The principle of Christian Liberty allows for personal convictions regarding non-essential things. There is very little in eschatology that requires agreement in order to be saved. There is room for disagreement on some things. However, with a faithful adherence to Scripture and a willingness to abide by God's Word, much of these "gray areas" go away when we interpret Scripture with Scripture and let God be true though every man a liar.
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Let's Talk About Sex
There's nothing like a good title to grab your attention, eh?
We live in what some have called a "sexular society." The fundamental ruling principle today is sex -- "I want what I want and no one has the right to deny me." But sexual immorality is such an oft repeated topic in Scripture that believers and unbelievers alike cannot deny that God's Word has a real problem with sexual immorality -- specifically, sex outside of marriage. So, clearly, we've been lied to, and we don't even know it. Sex is not about physical pleasure. Sex is not even about emotional or physical intimacy. Oh, I'm not saying those aren't components; God is an amazing Creator and worked all that in. But that was not the point. God made sex first for procreation (Gen 1:28) and second for ... a miracle. The biblical description is "they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Jesus confirmed it (Matt 19:5). Paul repeated it (Eph 5:31). In fact, it was this very concept that caused Paul to warn the Corinthian believers against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:16). In a sense, God designed sex to be magical ... and we've whittled it down to "a good time" in our society today. We -- including Christians -- see it as "fun" and "pleasurable." We can find books, even Christian books, about how to have better sex, what techniques to use, steps to take ... kind of a "Users Manual." But it's all bogus, because the point is always "How can I get better sex?" And that's not the point of sex.
As in all things, sex was designed by God for His glory (1 Cor 10:31). Now, how does that feel laying it next to the typical sexual mindset ... even of Christians? "Sex ... for God's glory ... how can that be?" We might wonder, but it is true. So Scripture first (and repeatedly) makes it clear that sex is for marriage only. Any deviation from married sex is a deviation from God's purposes. But Paul points out that God's version of "married sex" stands our human understanding on its head. "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband" (1 Cor 7:3). He classifies it as "duty," and not a commitment to my own satisfaction; it is a commitment to my spouse. He says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is so foreign to our human perspective that we aren't really clear on how that works. When a husband and wife engage in sexual relations, the requirement is "My body is not mine." That's an absurdity to most minds. "Of course my body is mine! And I expect her/him to satisfy me!" Paul turns that around. Paul says I'm supposed to surrender my body to my spouse. It's never about me.
Human sexuality is an exceedingly complex thing. From the outside -- varieties of sensations and techniques that are uniquely experienced by each individual -- and from the inside -- the thoughts, feelings, even spirit involved that are extremely individual -- we're complicated and interrelated people. When Peter told husbands, "You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way ..." (1 Peter 3:7), he said a mouthful. Our task is to live a lifestyle and a lifetime of learning our wives, and sex is part of that ... a very complex part. We humans tend to distill it down to "recreation" that is certainly mostly physical and primarily "about me" -- "What do I want? Are my needs being met? What feels good to me?". God intended sex as a vastly larger concept that is lost on unbelievers and even believers. Paul explains that this thing we call "sex" that results in "they shall become one flesh" is intended as an illustration of Christ's relationship to His Bride, the Church -- a great mystery (Eph 5:31-32). It is, therefore, extremely important to God and, thus, to us. Boiling sex down to a mere physical act or even a physical and emotional and spiritual intimacy misses the main point. God is to be glorified in the act that He designed in order to show this exceedingly great mystery -- Christ loves the Church and is "united as one" with her. No sex manual, no sexual procedure, no mere physical pleasure will satisfy that purpose. We cannot afford to boil it down as the world has done to "friends with benefits" or "my sexual satisfaction." Anything less than God's full design is an insult to God, and when we fail to grasp His purposes, we sell ourselves short.
We live in what some have called a "sexular society." The fundamental ruling principle today is sex -- "I want what I want and no one has the right to deny me." But sexual immorality is such an oft repeated topic in Scripture that believers and unbelievers alike cannot deny that God's Word has a real problem with sexual immorality -- specifically, sex outside of marriage. So, clearly, we've been lied to, and we don't even know it. Sex is not about physical pleasure. Sex is not even about emotional or physical intimacy. Oh, I'm not saying those aren't components; God is an amazing Creator and worked all that in. But that was not the point. God made sex first for procreation (Gen 1:28) and second for ... a miracle. The biblical description is "they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Jesus confirmed it (Matt 19:5). Paul repeated it (Eph 5:31). In fact, it was this very concept that caused Paul to warn the Corinthian believers against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:16). In a sense, God designed sex to be magical ... and we've whittled it down to "a good time" in our society today. We -- including Christians -- see it as "fun" and "pleasurable." We can find books, even Christian books, about how to have better sex, what techniques to use, steps to take ... kind of a "Users Manual." But it's all bogus, because the point is always "How can I get better sex?" And that's not the point of sex.
As in all things, sex was designed by God for His glory (1 Cor 10:31). Now, how does that feel laying it next to the typical sexual mindset ... even of Christians? "Sex ... for God's glory ... how can that be?" We might wonder, but it is true. So Scripture first (and repeatedly) makes it clear that sex is for marriage only. Any deviation from married sex is a deviation from God's purposes. But Paul points out that God's version of "married sex" stands our human understanding on its head. "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband" (1 Cor 7:3). He classifies it as "duty," and not a commitment to my own satisfaction; it is a commitment to my spouse. He says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is so foreign to our human perspective that we aren't really clear on how that works. When a husband and wife engage in sexual relations, the requirement is "My body is not mine." That's an absurdity to most minds. "Of course my body is mine! And I expect her/him to satisfy me!" Paul turns that around. Paul says I'm supposed to surrender my body to my spouse. It's never about me.
Human sexuality is an exceedingly complex thing. From the outside -- varieties of sensations and techniques that are uniquely experienced by each individual -- and from the inside -- the thoughts, feelings, even spirit involved that are extremely individual -- we're complicated and interrelated people. When Peter told husbands, "You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way ..." (1 Peter 3:7), he said a mouthful. Our task is to live a lifestyle and a lifetime of learning our wives, and sex is part of that ... a very complex part. We humans tend to distill it down to "recreation" that is certainly mostly physical and primarily "about me" -- "What do I want? Are my needs being met? What feels good to me?". God intended sex as a vastly larger concept that is lost on unbelievers and even believers. Paul explains that this thing we call "sex" that results in "they shall become one flesh" is intended as an illustration of Christ's relationship to His Bride, the Church -- a great mystery (Eph 5:31-32). It is, therefore, extremely important to God and, thus, to us. Boiling sex down to a mere physical act or even a physical and emotional and spiritual intimacy misses the main point. God is to be glorified in the act that He designed in order to show this exceedingly great mystery -- Christ loves the Church and is "united as one" with her. No sex manual, no sexual procedure, no mere physical pleasure will satisfy that purpose. We cannot afford to boil it down as the world has done to "friends with benefits" or "my sexual satisfaction." Anything less than God's full design is an insult to God, and when we fail to grasp His purposes, we sell ourselves short.
Monday, November 25, 2024
God's Will in Salvation
In Scripture we have two stories that coincide closely in time. Two people have visitations from an angel and receive wildly unexpected, even similar news. One was a priest named Zacharias (Luke 1:1-20) and the other was a betrothed virgin named Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Both were told there would be a child in their futures. Both questioned the news. Zacharias asked, "How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years" (Luke 1:18). Mary asked, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34). Very similar responses ... very different outcomes. Zacharias was rendered mute until his son was born and Mary responded, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). What was the difference? Zacharias was questioning the angel's veracity, and Mary was inquiring about the method. Zacharias assumed it was too unlikely and was skeptical while Mary assumed it was true and allowed an unlikely explanation. In the discussion of Man's sin condition, God's choice of who to save, and all that, we will always have dissenters. For the most part, the dissension is civil and, even, biblical. "I don't see how what you're saying coincides with what I see in Scripture." All well and good. But it often degenerates from there to an unkind and unnecessary battle. What we need is more Marys and less Zechariases. What we need is believers who say, "I will abide by God's Word whatever it really says -- all of God's Word -- and change my understanding accordingly" rather than "That can't be, because it violates my thinking."
Let's look at an example. One text I see so very often in that discussion to "prove" that God doesn't choose whom He will save is an oft-quoted text from Peter's second epistle. His readers, apparently, were concerned about when the day of the Lord would come, and Peter was trying to calm them down. So, he wrote that there would be scoffers,
Notice the word "wishing" in that sentence. The word is the one used for "will". So some translate it "desire" and some translate it "will" and some translate it "want" and some translate it "wish." The Green's Literal Translation (LITV) says God has not "purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). We're not speaking here of mere "wishful thinking." In fact, putting together an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Sovereign God who indulges in "wishful thinking" seems like a silly concept. So what is Peter saying? He's not saying, "God really, really wants everyone to be saved ... but just can't pull it off." No, this is a matter of God's will. What is God's will? That there would not be any that perish.
What shall we conclude then? Does God fail? Does He not get His will done? We know that Jesus said, "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). We know that Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). Clearly not all will be saved, much to the outrage of self-styled universalists. And clearly that's God's plan (Rom 9:18). If God planned to save everyone, He could accomplish it. He hasn't. So what is Peter saying?
It's interesting how we all seem to "fill in the blanks" on our own on this text. "God is not willing that any should perish," it says. Any what? We all assume "any humans." But why? It's not in the text. So the "any" is defined somewhere else in the text. Where? Right in the same verse. "God," he says, "is patient toward you." Inserting "all mankind" as the subject of "any" in that text is arbitrary. Peter was talking to "you," to believers, to the people of God, to Jesus's sheep, if you will. Jesus said He had many sheep "not of this fold" and He would bring them in also (John 10:16). Peter isn't talking about all mankind; he's talking about the elect. "God is not willing that any of you perish," not "all mankind." And God never fails, so Peter is assuring his readers that all the elect will indeed be saved before Christ returns.
In truth, the common interpretation that it means that God's will was to save everyone and just couldn't pull it off is a serious problem. It undercuts His Omnipotence. It undercuts His Sovereignty. It undercuts His character. It subjugates the Supreme Father to being essentially a butler working hard for His masters, the human race, but, doggone it, just not being able to take care of them all. He tried, but He couldn't do it. And, of course, that ends the reliability of Jesus and the reliability of Scripture and ... well, say farewell to any reliable Christianity. If Peter intended to tell us that God willed to save everyone and failed, we're in real trouble.
Let's look at an example. One text I see so very often in that discussion to "prove" that God doesn't choose whom He will save is an oft-quoted text from Peter's second epistle. His readers, apparently, were concerned about when the day of the Lord would come, and Peter was trying to calm them down. So, he wrote that there would be scoffers,
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9)There it is, clear as day. God wants everyone to be saved. Undeniable, right? But ... is it?
Notice the word "wishing" in that sentence. The word is the one used for "will". So some translate it "desire" and some translate it "will" and some translate it "want" and some translate it "wish." The Green's Literal Translation (LITV) says God has not "purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). We're not speaking here of mere "wishful thinking." In fact, putting together an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Sovereign God who indulges in "wishful thinking" seems like a silly concept. So what is Peter saying? He's not saying, "God really, really wants everyone to be saved ... but just can't pull it off." No, this is a matter of God's will. What is God's will? That there would not be any that perish.
What shall we conclude then? Does God fail? Does He not get His will done? We know that Jesus said, "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). We know that Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). Clearly not all will be saved, much to the outrage of self-styled universalists. And clearly that's God's plan (Rom 9:18). If God planned to save everyone, He could accomplish it. He hasn't. So what is Peter saying?
It's interesting how we all seem to "fill in the blanks" on our own on this text. "God is not willing that any should perish," it says. Any what? We all assume "any humans." But why? It's not in the text. So the "any" is defined somewhere else in the text. Where? Right in the same verse. "God," he says, "is patient toward you." Inserting "all mankind" as the subject of "any" in that text is arbitrary. Peter was talking to "you," to believers, to the people of God, to Jesus's sheep, if you will. Jesus said He had many sheep "not of this fold" and He would bring them in also (John 10:16). Peter isn't talking about all mankind; he's talking about the elect. "God is not willing that any of you perish," not "all mankind." And God never fails, so Peter is assuring his readers that all the elect will indeed be saved before Christ returns.
In truth, the common interpretation that it means that God's will was to save everyone and just couldn't pull it off is a serious problem. It undercuts His Omnipotence. It undercuts His Sovereignty. It undercuts His character. It subjugates the Supreme Father to being essentially a butler working hard for His masters, the human race, but, doggone it, just not being able to take care of them all. He tried, but He couldn't do it. And, of course, that ends the reliability of Jesus and the reliability of Scripture and ... well, say farewell to any reliable Christianity. If Peter intended to tell us that God willed to save everyone and failed, we're in real trouble.
Sunday, November 24, 2024
Treasures and Hearts
Jesus was famous for His statement,
Jesus offered the statement as a sort of litmus test. "Here's the test," He seemed to say. "What do you treasure? Look at what you treasure and you can tell where your heart is." What do we treasure? We treasure stuff -- comfort, well-being, money. We treasure less concrete stuff -- fame, power, that sort. We treasure America, don't we? I mean, genuine Christians are deeply exercised over the state of the union, who is in charge, will our nation thrive or recede, that kind of thing. More simply put, where do we spend our time, money, energy? In what are we most deeply invested? There, dear readers, is your treasure and there is where your heart is. So if we skip church on Sunday because our kids have a soccer game or we just don't seem to have time to pray and read our bibles or if loving our neighbors or making disciples is too much work, or if you hear yourself say, "I'm not sure I can give to that need because I'm saving up for a boat" ... these kinds of things tell you where your treasure is (or is not) and, therefore, where your heart is.
Interestingly, our attention seems to hang on "treasure." Mine did right there in that last paragraph. "Where is your treasure?" The real problem is not your treasure; it is your heart. The real consequence of a misplaced treasure is a misdirected heart. And we muddle through, struggling for temporal treasures rather than investing in eternal treasures because our hearts are not in eternity. I'm not sure I can face myself if that's true about me. Are you okay with it?
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matt 6:19-21)We've all heard it. We all nod and say, "Amen, Preacher!" Or something like it. And we all go on our merry way, like James's man who sees himself in the mirror and forgets who he is when he walks away (James 1:22-24). The text could almost be considered to be aimed directly at American Christianity. Americans are all about storing treasures on earth. "The one who dies with the most toys wins" is a popular saying. American Christians often suffer from the same malady.
Jesus offered the statement as a sort of litmus test. "Here's the test," He seemed to say. "What do you treasure? Look at what you treasure and you can tell where your heart is." What do we treasure? We treasure stuff -- comfort, well-being, money. We treasure less concrete stuff -- fame, power, that sort. We treasure America, don't we? I mean, genuine Christians are deeply exercised over the state of the union, who is in charge, will our nation thrive or recede, that kind of thing. More simply put, where do we spend our time, money, energy? In what are we most deeply invested? There, dear readers, is your treasure and there is where your heart is. So if we skip church on Sunday because our kids have a soccer game or we just don't seem to have time to pray and read our bibles or if loving our neighbors or making disciples is too much work, or if you hear yourself say, "I'm not sure I can give to that need because I'm saving up for a boat" ... these kinds of things tell you where your treasure is (or is not) and, therefore, where your heart is.
Interestingly, our attention seems to hang on "treasure." Mine did right there in that last paragraph. "Where is your treasure?" The real problem is not your treasure; it is your heart. The real consequence of a misplaced treasure is a misdirected heart. And we muddle through, struggling for temporal treasures rather than investing in eternal treasures because our hearts are not in eternity. I'm not sure I can face myself if that's true about me. Are you okay with it?
Saturday, November 23, 2024
News Weakly - 11/23/2024
What's In A Name?
The word, "squaw," originated in the Algonquian languages. The English settlers that lived there borrowed it to reference a young, unmarried, Native American woman. Apparently, over time, the Algonquians became racists, because California (like others have done) plans to rename places that use this "racist term" for a Native American woman. It's crazy, I know, but it's not just California. It's a nation gone mad. (Like renaming teams named to honor Native American bravery and prowess.)
Cause and Effect
If Ukraine uses American weapons on Russia, Putin is warning he'll consider it aggression by the U.S. ... and act accordingly. Theoretically, NATO could end the war between Russia and Ukraine by simply saying, "No, we are not allowing Ukraine to join NATO." They won't. And Biden has green-lighted the use of American missiles on Russian soil. So if we get repercussions we don't like, don't blame it all on Putin.
Access Penalty
Tolls have been used on roads for a long time, primarily to pay for construction -- old and new -- decrease travel time, and generate revenue for local government. New York City would like to use it ... to decrease traffic -- to penalize people for coming into the city. I mean, what could go wrong? "Hey, why is business down? Fewer people are coming in." Your government working for you.
Can You Say 'I Don't Think So'?
Ukraine claims Russia fired an ICBM on the city of Dnipro. If it is true, it's the first use of ICBMs in the conflict. The West is denying it was an ICBM. Logically, firing an intercontinental weapon at your next door neighbor when you've plenty of standard missiles to do the job is just ... stupid. And Ukraine fired their American-supplied long-range missiles at Russia just two days before, so ... what did they expect? I'm saddened that Ukraine and Russia are fighting. I'm concerned that Ukraine's leadership may be ... less than trustworthy. As the story above says, Russia is promising repurcussions. I'm somewhat concerned that Zelenskyy could lie us into a greater war with Russia. So I'm so glad that we are in the hands of a living God.
I Don't Even ...
A "piece of art" consisting of a banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $6.5 million at auction this week. If I actually thought a banana duct-taped to a wall was art, I could have saved $6.5 million and duct-taped my own banana to my own wall. But since that's not actually art, I'll further save myself the embarrassment of having a banana taped to my wall ... that I have to change once a week. A $6.5 million proof that we live in a crazy world.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Maybe it was the Bee's "Pick On Baptists" week. One article said the latest Baptist pin-up calendar just showed photos of casseroles. Another reported the SBC voted to allow dancing ... as long as it's the "Trump dance." Finally, for all you Monty Python's "Holy Grail" fans, Biden has authorized Ukraine to use the holy hand grenade against Russia. (Sorry, non-fans. You'll have to figure that out on your own.)
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The word, "squaw," originated in the Algonquian languages. The English settlers that lived there borrowed it to reference a young, unmarried, Native American woman. Apparently, over time, the Algonquians became racists, because California (like others have done) plans to rename places that use this "racist term" for a Native American woman. It's crazy, I know, but it's not just California. It's a nation gone mad. (Like renaming teams named to honor Native American bravery and prowess.)
Cause and Effect
If Ukraine uses American weapons on Russia, Putin is warning he'll consider it aggression by the U.S. ... and act accordingly. Theoretically, NATO could end the war between Russia and Ukraine by simply saying, "No, we are not allowing Ukraine to join NATO." They won't. And Biden has green-lighted the use of American missiles on Russian soil. So if we get repercussions we don't like, don't blame it all on Putin.
Access Penalty
Tolls have been used on roads for a long time, primarily to pay for construction -- old and new -- decrease travel time, and generate revenue for local government. New York City would like to use it ... to decrease traffic -- to penalize people for coming into the city. I mean, what could go wrong? "Hey, why is business down? Fewer people are coming in." Your government working for you.
Can You Say 'I Don't Think So'?
Ukraine claims Russia fired an ICBM on the city of Dnipro. If it is true, it's the first use of ICBMs in the conflict. The West is denying it was an ICBM. Logically, firing an intercontinental weapon at your next door neighbor when you've plenty of standard missiles to do the job is just ... stupid. And Ukraine fired their American-supplied long-range missiles at Russia just two days before, so ... what did they expect? I'm saddened that Ukraine and Russia are fighting. I'm concerned that Ukraine's leadership may be ... less than trustworthy. As the story above says, Russia is promising repurcussions. I'm somewhat concerned that Zelenskyy could lie us into a greater war with Russia. So I'm so glad that we are in the hands of a living God.
I Don't Even ...
A "piece of art" consisting of a banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $6.5 million at auction this week. If I actually thought a banana duct-taped to a wall was art, I could have saved $6.5 million and duct-taped my own banana to my own wall. But since that's not actually art, I'll further save myself the embarrassment of having a banana taped to my wall ... that I have to change once a week. A $6.5 million proof that we live in a crazy world.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Maybe it was the Bee's "Pick On Baptists" week. One article said the latest Baptist pin-up calendar just showed photos of casseroles. Another reported the SBC voted to allow dancing ... as long as it's the "Trump dance." Finally, for all you Monty Python's "Holy Grail" fans, Biden has authorized Ukraine to use the holy hand grenade against Russia. (Sorry, non-fans. You'll have to figure that out on your own.)
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, November 22, 2024
TULIP - P
Well, we've made it to the end. We're at the "P" of TULIP. "P," of course, is for Perseverance of the Saints. Now, when I was younger, I believed myself to be a "Calvinist" because I believed in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), and those misguided Arminians thought you could lose your salvation. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was a one-point Calvinist, rejecting those first 4. But, of course, God had the last laugh. I ended up embracing the TULI (or so) and rejecting the OSAS. So ... what does that "P" signify?
We've seen, from Scripture, that Man is a sinner and, therefore, sins. It's in his nature. That nature touches every part, making him dead in sin, hostile to God, and God's enemy. The only hope, then, is God's work. He has chosen some to save, not on their own merit, but for His purposes. He has provided the solution to their sin in the Atonement, which Christ completed perfectly for the ones God has chosen. And, leaving nothing to chance, the Spirit applies grace to the chosen without requiring their permission. He regenerates, provides repentance (2 Cor 7:9; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3). Now, this "dead in sin," "hostile to God" sinner has a changed heart and comes, in faith and repentance, to receive that Atonement. And ... then what?
If you read the Scriptures you will find that believers can lose their salvation and cannot lose their salvation. That is, you'll find verses to support both perspectives. Interestingly, all of the "lose your salvation" passages (e.g., Heb 6:4-6; Matt 7:21-23; Ezek 18:24-26; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Rev 3:5; etc.) are from Man's perspective, and all of the "can't lose your salvation" passages are from God's perspective. So, which is it? First, consider. The term often used for "salvation" is "eternal life." Now, if "eternal life" can stop ... it's not eternal, is it? John wrote, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). That's "has" -- present tense. Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation" ("See? You can lose it.") for "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Our work versus God's work. Jesus said, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:29). "Oh," some say, "but I can." Alright, so you're "no one"? Jude wrote that God is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Paul wrote something very similar. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). I can only conclude, then, that God is the means by which everyone who comes to Christ will be saved, and that without fail.
I said at the outset that I rejected OSAS. I believe that's an error. It suggests it's possible to become saved and never change. It's not. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). A believer can sin, but he can't make a practice of it "because he is born of God." John also wrote of those who "went out from us." Of them he says, "they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). I cannot make a coherent argument that God is willing and able to save to the end all who believe ... and can't. So I'm going with God on this one. That's why I prefer to call this last point "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." I'm offering one last Scripture for you to consider: Romans 8:31-39. You're likely familiar with the text. Note, however, the sentence right there in the middle. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33). There it is, the connection between "Unconditional Election" and "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." But read the whole thing. It's much larger than this connection, and it is certainly no less than this connection. We trust in God ... for life, for salvation, for being kept, for everything. That's a certainty.
________
One last thought. The ideas that comprise TULIP that I've just laid out this past week are not "essentials." At least, I won't divide from fellow believers who don't agree. But I want you to see that I haven't offered you philosophical speculations or some "tradition." I've offered Scripture. You're certainly free to understand these Scriptures in a different way, but you should be able to admit that, even if you don't agree, these doctrines come from Scripture. At least we should be able to agree on that. If you disagree with the interpretation I offer, please be careful to align Scripture rather than refute it.
We've seen, from Scripture, that Man is a sinner and, therefore, sins. It's in his nature. That nature touches every part, making him dead in sin, hostile to God, and God's enemy. The only hope, then, is God's work. He has chosen some to save, not on their own merit, but for His purposes. He has provided the solution to their sin in the Atonement, which Christ completed perfectly for the ones God has chosen. And, leaving nothing to chance, the Spirit applies grace to the chosen without requiring their permission. He regenerates, provides repentance (2 Cor 7:9; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3). Now, this "dead in sin," "hostile to God" sinner has a changed heart and comes, in faith and repentance, to receive that Atonement. And ... then what?
If you read the Scriptures you will find that believers can lose their salvation and cannot lose their salvation. That is, you'll find verses to support both perspectives. Interestingly, all of the "lose your salvation" passages (e.g., Heb 6:4-6; Matt 7:21-23; Ezek 18:24-26; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Rev 3:5; etc.) are from Man's perspective, and all of the "can't lose your salvation" passages are from God's perspective. So, which is it? First, consider. The term often used for "salvation" is "eternal life." Now, if "eternal life" can stop ... it's not eternal, is it? John wrote, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). That's "has" -- present tense. Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation" ("See? You can lose it.") for "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Our work versus God's work. Jesus said, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:29). "Oh," some say, "but I can." Alright, so you're "no one"? Jude wrote that God is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Paul wrote something very similar. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). I can only conclude, then, that God is the means by which everyone who comes to Christ will be saved, and that without fail.
I said at the outset that I rejected OSAS. I believe that's an error. It suggests it's possible to become saved and never change. It's not. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). A believer can sin, but he can't make a practice of it "because he is born of God." John also wrote of those who "went out from us." Of them he says, "they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). I cannot make a coherent argument that God is willing and able to save to the end all who believe ... and can't. So I'm going with God on this one. That's why I prefer to call this last point "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." I'm offering one last Scripture for you to consider: Romans 8:31-39. You're likely familiar with the text. Note, however, the sentence right there in the middle. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33). There it is, the connection between "Unconditional Election" and "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." But read the whole thing. It's much larger than this connection, and it is certainly no less than this connection. We trust in God ... for life, for salvation, for being kept, for everything. That's a certainty.
________
One last thought. The ideas that comprise TULIP that I've just laid out this past week are not "essentials." At least, I won't divide from fellow believers who don't agree. But I want you to see that I haven't offered you philosophical speculations or some "tradition." I've offered Scripture. You're certainly free to understand these Scriptures in a different way, but you should be able to admit that, even if you don't agree, these doctrines come from Scripture. At least we should be able to agree on that. If you disagree with the interpretation I offer, please be careful to align Scripture rather than refute it.
Thursday, November 21, 2024
TULIP - I
We're up to "I" in this series. We started with the problem: Man's radical depravity that cuts him off from God without any means of remedying it himself. We went to "U" which says that God, therefore, chooses whom He will save without regard to their own merits. He saves on the basis of His own purposes. Then to "L" where we see that the Atonement -- our only means to salvation -- was intended to pay for all the sins of those whom He has chosen ... and does so perfectly. And then there's "Irresistible Grace."
Remember. These are all linked. Radical Depravity requires that God chooses whom He will save without regard to their merits ... because they have none (Sovereign Election). Particular Atonement holds that those who are sovereignly elected have their sins paid for. So, the next question is, how effective is God's choice of you? Can you refuse? Does it all boil down to me and my choice? So, again, let's look at what "Irresistible Grace" does not mean. It does not meant that God's grace cannot be resisted. Clearly people all over the world resist the Holy Spirit all the time (Acts 7:51). What it does mean is that, if you are among the elect, at some point the Holy Spirit will certainly overcome your resistance and you will be saved. Does the Bible agree?
On one hand, Scripture is clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). No exceptions. In Antioch in Pisidia Paul left the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, and "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Note how "appointed" precedes "believed." Jesus gave the same cause-and-effect concept when He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). That is, in order to believe, you have to be first "one of My sheep." In Romans 8 where God tells us why "all things work together for good" according to God's purpose, he explains, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Rom 8:28-30). There is no break in that chain, starting from "foreknew" all the way to "justified" and "glorified" ... and there is no mention of anything we do to cause or prevent it. Paul knowingly upset his readers when he wrote, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Nothing about us being in the loop. John wrote that we are born again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Not your birth, not your will, not your choices -- just God. Clearly, then, everyone that the Father gives the Son will indeed come to the Son and not by their own skillful efforts or willingness. God successfully overcomes the hostility of Natural Man (Rom 8:7) by first redeeming him and then applying grace ... without the permission of the recipients, as it were. We are, as we all know, saved by grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).
Given the extent of the problem -- our "dead in sin" nature -- God requires a means of salvation that does not rest on the unsaved. He chooses on the basis of His own purposes, redeems those whom He chooses, and regenerates those He has redeemed. If left to our own devices, we would accept none of that. We couldn't understand; we wouldn't receive. So He does it. He does it all. In Paul's terms we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," ready for the wrath God so willingly has to give (Rom 9:22), and He graciously makes of us vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). No thanks to us. No merit to us. No dependence on us. He ... just ... saves ... whom He chooses and with perfect efficiency. How about, instead of "Irresistible Grace," we call it "Effectual Grace"?
________
For your added reference: Rom 5:8; John 10:27-29; Php 2:13; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 1:16; etc.
Remember. These are all linked. Radical Depravity requires that God chooses whom He will save without regard to their merits ... because they have none (Sovereign Election). Particular Atonement holds that those who are sovereignly elected have their sins paid for. So, the next question is, how effective is God's choice of you? Can you refuse? Does it all boil down to me and my choice? So, again, let's look at what "Irresistible Grace" does not mean. It does not meant that God's grace cannot be resisted. Clearly people all over the world resist the Holy Spirit all the time (Acts 7:51). What it does mean is that, if you are among the elect, at some point the Holy Spirit will certainly overcome your resistance and you will be saved. Does the Bible agree?
On one hand, Scripture is clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). No exceptions. In Antioch in Pisidia Paul left the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, and "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Note how "appointed" precedes "believed." Jesus gave the same cause-and-effect concept when He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). That is, in order to believe, you have to be first "one of My sheep." In Romans 8 where God tells us why "all things work together for good" according to God's purpose, he explains, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Rom 8:28-30). There is no break in that chain, starting from "foreknew" all the way to "justified" and "glorified" ... and there is no mention of anything we do to cause or prevent it. Paul knowingly upset his readers when he wrote, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Nothing about us being in the loop. John wrote that we are born again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Not your birth, not your will, not your choices -- just God. Clearly, then, everyone that the Father gives the Son will indeed come to the Son and not by their own skillful efforts or willingness. God successfully overcomes the hostility of Natural Man (Rom 8:7) by first redeeming him and then applying grace ... without the permission of the recipients, as it were. We are, as we all know, saved by grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).
Given the extent of the problem -- our "dead in sin" nature -- God requires a means of salvation that does not rest on the unsaved. He chooses on the basis of His own purposes, redeems those whom He chooses, and regenerates those He has redeemed. If left to our own devices, we would accept none of that. We couldn't understand; we wouldn't receive. So He does it. He does it all. In Paul's terms we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," ready for the wrath God so willingly has to give (Rom 9:22), and He graciously makes of us vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). No thanks to us. No merit to us. No dependence on us. He ... just ... saves ... whom He chooses and with perfect efficiency. How about, instead of "Irresistible Grace," we call it "Effectual Grace"?
________
For your added reference: Rom 5:8; John 10:27-29; Php 2:13; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 1:16; etc.
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
TULIP - L
Okay, so far we have "T" where mankind as a whole are sinners from birth, dead in sin, hostile to God, without hope. So how would anyone get saved? First, we have "U" where God chooses whom He will save ... which is good since none of us merit His choice. He chooses for His own purposes and has already, before time began, recorded everyone who will be saved. What else is needed? Well, we need some method of being saved. We need what Scripture calls "atonement" -- an "at-one-ment" whereby our sins are forgiven and set aside and we can have peace with God. That's our "L" -- Limited Atonement.
This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.
What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.
"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.
Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.
This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.
What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.
"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.
Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)