Think This Way

You've heard we should "walk this way." Maybe it's how we should act in certain situations or how we should be good Christians or something else. And it may even be good advice. Have you ever considered how we should think?

Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. (Col 3:1-5)

The "therefore" at the beginning refers to Paul's explanation in the previous chapter that we were "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God" (Col 2:12). Based on that, we "have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world" (Col 2:20). So, raised with Christ, we must "keep seeking the things above." We need to "Set your mind on the things above." Think this way

This seems like an impossible task. We're surrounded every day with "elementary principles of the world." We're bombarded with "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It's in our entertainment, our advertisement, our conversation, our entire lives. And Paul says, "Your life is hidden with Christ in God." Are we living that way? Are we thinking that way? When I learned to drive, my instructor told me, "Don't look at the parked cars." "Why?" I asked him. "I need to avoid them." He said, "You always go where you look. Look down the road and not just in front of you." Paul is telling us the same. Don't look around you. You'll go that way. Look to Christ, to the things above. Think that way.

Me Submit? No Way!

We're Americans. You know, "the land of the free." And, although it's a myth, we're mostly free. In earlier eras the rank and file were used to submitting, but not us. Oh, no. "No kings." "No tyrants." "Don't tread on me." We will not bend. So it is often a problem when we come across such things as the one that says we're supposed to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Often it's the particulars that trip us up. "Wives submit? No way!" "Children, obey? Yeah, right." Oh, and "Slaves, obey? That's not even right." But what about "submit"?

The word in the text is a military term. It means literally to rank under ... to place oneself under. Like in the military when you sign up and immediately find yourself outranked. It's not that you're less important, less of a person, less valuable. No. It's a matter of rank. Authority. Priority. Paul says we are to be submitting to one another -- ranking under each other. Note that it's voluntary. By that, I mean it's something you choose to do. It doesn't just ... happen. Do it. Notice also that it's universal. "To one another." Everyone. Paul gives examples in husband and wife relationships, parent and child relationships, and master and slave relationships (Eph 5:22-6:9). Don't get bogged down in the examples. Everyone ... submit. Set self aside. Paul wrote the same thing in Philippians. "... with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). That's "submit." Rank yourself under others.

We don't like it, but it's in there. In fact, it's all the way through. Jesus was the example, emptying Himself (Php 2:5-8). And it's not easy. Paul precedes the command to submit with the command to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) because it's a God thing. But it's the right thing. We are supposed to live a submitted life, where we elevate others over ourselves. Will you? Will you deny yourself (Matt 16:24)?

Biblically Informed

Most people don't know it, but the Bible inhabits a lot of the corners of our lives without us even knowing it. We have a lot of idioms and sayings that are biblically sourced.

Take, for instance, "the skin of your teeth." It comes from Job 19:20, where Job "escaped with the skin of my teeth." I'm sure we've all heard that a leopard can't change its spots, which comes from Jeremiah 13:23. "A fly in the ointment" comes from Ecclesiastes 10:1. "No rest for the wicked" (which has been thoroughly butchered since then) comes from Isaiah 57:20-21. The idea of "putting words in my mouth" comes from 2 Samuel 14:3. "Seeing eye to eye" comes from Isaiah 52:8. There are some you probably know, like "the writing on the wall" from Daniel 5 and "cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as a direct quote from Jesus (Mark 3:25). "Going the extra mile" was from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:41) and being a "good Samaritan" was from Jesus's parable (Luke 10:30-37). "A wolf in sheep's clothing" was from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:15) and to "wash your hands of something" is from Pilate's actions when he sent Jesus to be crucified (Matt 27:24).

That's a sampling. I've found quite a few. I just think it's funny that God's Word has worked its way into our daily conversations even as our nation tries to push it out.

Happy Father's Day

Scripture refers repeatedly to a person of the Trinity that is called "the Father." Jesus often referred to Him as "Father," which upset the Jews of His day. It's not like they hadn't heard it before (e.g, Isa 63:16) Scripture refers to Israel as "the children of God" (Deu 14:1). Jesus made it clear that He was about His "Father's business" (KJV) repeatedly (e.g., Luke 2:49). And while a whole lot of people think of humans as "all God's children," Scripture says,

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, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

We're told that we are adopted (Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5-7; Rom 8:14-19). It's silly to "adopt" your own children. So humans are surely God's creation and "children" in that sense, but those who are not saved are "of your father, the devil" (John 8:44), and genuine "children of God" are born of God (John 3:5).

I've heard people complain about God as "Father." "I never had a good father. I don't know what that means." I suspect that's not quite true. They know they never had a good father ... because they know what a good father is and didn't have one. Fortunately, on this Father's Day, we can celebrate the perfect Father and give thanks for the father's He gave us.

News Weakly - 6/14/2025

California Burning
Californians are mad. They're violently protesting Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration in Los Angeles. Protesters protested the deployment of the national guard, but LA police chief Jim McDonnell refuses to participate in any way because SB 54 makes Los Angeles a "sanctuary city" in defiance of the law. California is suing Trump for stopping the riots and enforcing the law without their permission. So, Mr. Trump, you need to stop being the president of Los Angeles and San Francisco and just leave them be. Of course, make sure they get no federal funding and all. I mean, you need to be consistent. Maybe a border wall around those or something?

A sidenote on the L.A. story. in 2008, the courts struck down a California law approved by 70% of the voters that defined marriage as a man and a woman. That year, Californians again voted, this time to make that definition part of the state constitution. Again, the courts struck it down. So it's very odd to hear Californian protesters saying it's anti-democratic for the federal government to enforce federal law, but that's what they were saying in California. Double standard much? (And a side question. Why so many Mexican flags in an American protest?)

Better Than I Expected
Israel seized a ship headed for Gaza ... that happened to be carrying Greta Thunberg. Greta was (wisely) deported and appears to be headed back to Sweden. Her plan was to save the Palestinians ... which, of course, would require the elimination of Israel, since that's the Palestinian position. But she still considers hers a "humanitarian mission."

Unrest
Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iran and Iran retaliated. Understandable ... except Israel attacked nuclear sites and Iran attacked Israel's citizens. And we'll call it "unrest in the Middle East" and debate who was right.

Say No to Democracy
You know that thing people do where they label someone "Hitler" as if that's a meaningful or even truthful thing, and it becomes the "truth"? In what seems to be the ultimate irony, they're planning a massive "peaceful" protest called ... get this ... "No Kings Day" to protest ... the duly elected president ... the "existential threat to democracy." Because by applying these labels in contradiction to fact, they win their argument ... without, you know, arguing ... or evidence.

Your Best Source for Fake News
On the Middle East, the headline reads, "Global Community Condemns Israel for Attacking Peace-Loving-Nation of Iran." No need for further comment. On the riots in L.A., CNN reports another peaceful night in L.A. where the majority of cars are not on fire. It's all in the spin. And Governor Newsom is promising to protect the illegal immigrants who elected him. Now that's representative government.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Don't Look Now

We had a special event at church recently. At one point, the speaker had the married couples stand. Then he told husbands to repeat after him and say what he told us to say to our wives. After that, he did the same for the wives to repeat to their husbands. You know the underlying message, right? "You're not doing this right, and you need to admit it." I was amused, of course, that the men were making more mistakes than the women, and, moreso that my wife told me, "You're already doing all he said you should be." I don't think I'm even remotely a perfect husband, but I'm pleased she's pleased.

It made me think. Have you noticed that the commands in Scripture for husbands and wives are not contingent? I mean, nowhere does it say, "Wives, submit to good husbands" or "Husbands, love your wives if they're treating you well." Every command for husbands and wives are commands without regard to the corresponding spouse. Husbands aren't told to love their wives who submit and wives aren't told to submit to husbands who love. In fact, Peter says, "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1) -- the opposite of what you might think.

If you pay attention to the standard wedding vows, they are intentionally unconditional. The promise is to love without consideration of the circumstances "'til death do us part." In the same way, we're commanded to treat our spouses in a way that glorifies God and not contingent on our spouses. We aren't to be analyzing their worth or obedience to Christ to determine our proper response. We're supposed to look to God for our motivation in doing what's best for our spouses ... unconditional love, powered by God, sanctified by the Spirit and freely given to our spouses. Imagine what love, freely given and not conditioned on the recipient, would do to marriages.

Surpassing Peace

The word, "surpassing," means "going beyond." Scripture says, "Do not be anxious about anything. Instead, in every situation, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, tell your requests to God. And the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). What a concept!

Some translations say "Don't worry about anything." I've heard people suggest that worry is a sin. "Don't ever say you're worried!!" I don't think that's the idea here. I think it's saying, "Worry is unnecessary. Anxiety isn't required. Go with the alternative." The alternative would be prayer and thanksgiving. In those two things we will find ... surpassing peace. To what does the "surpassing" refer? Understanding. This peace is not ... normal. It's not rational. It's not what we'd expect. What is it? It is a pure and simple reliance on God.

We live in turbulent times. Guns, murder, crime. The Middle East, Russia vs Ukraine. Stupid politics and stupid politicians. Sickness, death. Family troubles, work troubles, all kinds of troubles. It's easy to worry. It's natural to worry. It's even sensible to worry. But ... for us, it's unnecessary. If your trust is in the Lord, it's completely unnecessary. King David wrote, "YHWH has established His throne in heaven; His kingdom extends over everything" (Psa 103:19). Over ... everything. This peace surpasses understanding because it's predicated on God's character ... His grace and mercy, His Sovereignty and Omnipotence, His love and His Omniscience. It doesn't make sense ... to the world. Makes perfect sense to those who know Him.

Accept

I grew up being told that in order to become a Christian you had to "accept Christ." Is that true? It turns out you can't find that in Scripture. You can find, "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), but is that "accept"? Is there a difference?

According to the dictionary, the primary difference between "receive" and "accept" is that "accept" requires a conscious choice while "receive" is more passive. Is that the case here? It's interesting that the word "accept" is used in Scripture elsewhere. The word there in John for "receive" is lambanō while the word, say, in Romans 14 (Rom 14:1) translated "accept" is proslambanō. You can instantly see a difference ... the prefix, "pros," attached to "accept." And what's the intent of that prefix? It's a direction ... "toward." It implies "to take to oneself" where the base word means "to take." That is, one requires initiative and the other does not.

Scripture talks about our salvation as a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Grace is unmerited favor. It would seem to me that anything we add to God's salvation is ... worthy of merit, even if it's just, "I made the right choice." So I would argue that "receive" -- a passive receiving -- is the correct concept and "accept" -- our efforts to bring something to ourselves -- is not. I'm not quibbling over words, but I think the concept is vital since we so readily want to take some credit ... from God.

Useful

If you're a believer, you certainly want to be used by God for His glory. Maybe some or maybe a little or maybe a lot, but all believers have their hearts tuned to God to some extent. So we want to be used by God for His glory. How's that working for you? The question, of course, is more complex than it first appears. You want to be useful to God. How do you know if you are? That is, by what do we measure "useful"?

God declares that our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), so Paul says we need to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). God told His people, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. 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). Obviously, then, we're going to have a problem. Does what we consider "useful" line up with what God considers "useful." I would argue that it typically does not. Take, for instance, Jesus's words on Judas Iscariot. "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22). Judas was "determined" to be the one who would betray Christ. That betrayal was necessary, but ... evil. Judas ... was "useful" in his sin. Or how about Joseph's brothers? "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result" (Gen 50:20). Joseph's brothers sought to kill him and eventually sold him into slavery. Not good ... but it was useful to God. I would argue that we have a hard time, lacking omniscience, accurately measuring "useful to God."

Scripture talks about special people that are loved by God. David was "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22) John was "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:7). Peter says we should add to our faith a list of qualities (2 Peter 1:5-7). He concludes, "For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). Paul writes, "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work" (2 Tim 2:20-21). So remember that when you pray and when you act to serve God. Don't measure your effectiveness by the obvious results. Consider your character like Peter and Paul told us to do. Consider your heart ... are you pursuing God or your own interests? But don't look at the results and conclude, "That didn't work." You don't get to decide that. God will use whatever He will use to accomplish His best, and that's useful.

The Weak in Faith

Paul wrote,

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. (Rom 14:1-3)

The passage always made me laugh ... primarily at myself. He starts with accepting those weak in faith and goes on to say that vegetarians are weak in faith and my first thought is, "See? I knew it!" ... meaning I'm judging them. Oops! Okay, so let's back off and see what he's saying.

First, it's not about carnivores versus vegetarians. They're examples of a principle. What, then? He's talking about matters of "opinion." The Greek word is dialogismos and is clearly connected to "dialogue," so he's talking about things we are discussing or considering. He's talking about doubtful issues ... disputable matters. Now, Paul had no problem with "disputable matters" (as some translations put it) in things like the gospel (Gal 1:6-10) or sexual sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). He believed some things were worth defending and required real correction. He's talking about things that are disputable as opposed to things that are in dispute. Not things like "Can women lead over men?" (1 Tim 2:12-14) or "Is homosexual behavior a sin?" (1 Cor 6:9-10) because those are clear. He was talking about food issues (in his example) or "It's wrong to smoke" or "It's wrong to drink alcoholic beverages" that aren't covered. There are absolute essentials for salvation that aren't even close to "disputable" that are not up for dispute. He's not talking about those. It's not "matters that are being disputed." It's matters without clear biblical answers.

Paul says to accept them. Don't pass judgment on them. When Scripture says not to divorce and that the one who is not bound (1 Cor 7:15, 27-28) may remarry, don't make it an issue. When Ted says it's a sin to drive a car because it's bad for the environment, don't be judgmental of Ted. Take care of Ted ... and all the rest. Strive for unity. Show love for each other (John 13:34-35). And don't require them to violate their own conscience (Rom 14:23). We need to be better believers ... for God's glory (Rom 15:7).
________
As an aside, I would like to point out that "accept the weak in faith" does not mean "agree with" them. That's the modern version of "accept," but not the idea here. This is to embrace them without necessarily embracing their ideas.

In What Name?

Growing up, I understood that every real prayer had to end in "In the name of Jesus, Amen." I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you." (John 16:23)? Well, of course He did. So ... tack on "In the name of Jesus" and you'll get it. Now, we all know that doesn't actually work, so ... was Jesus wrong? No. We're just being silly.

What does it mean to ask "in the name of Jesus"? It is not some literal, magical use of the word, "Jesus." You'd think so, given the number of songs you hear about how "the name of Jesus" is ... beautiful, saving, breaking every chain, etc. "I pray the name of Jesus over you." I don't even know what that means. There are those who believe the word itself is ... magical. But we know better. What do we mean when we use the phrase? The dictionary says it means "under the authority of or on behalf of." When a police officer says, "Stop in the name of the law!" he's saying, "On the authority of the law, you must stop." When a rider rode into an old village in the Middle Ages with an edict "in the name of the king," it was "under the authority of the king." This isn't hard. In Scripture the term refers to that as well as the character of someone else -- the whole person. Not "Bob," but "all that Bob is and represents." When we say, "He has a good name," we are saying "He is of good character."

We are indeed called on to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) and act charitably in the name of Christ (Acts 3:8), to give thanks in the name of Jesus (Eph 5:20) and more. We're told, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father" (Col 3:17). Don't think that it's a function of the spelling of the name or some magic applied to it. We're talking about the authority and character of Christ to which we submit. Remember that the next time you pray "In the name of Jesus" -- "under the authority of and according to the character of Christ." It sure changes the meaning, doesn't it?

News Weakly - 6/7/2025

Captain Obvious
Carried to its logical conclusion, a pro-Palestinian man attacked a demonstration in support of Israel in Boulder Colorado. He used a homemade flame thrower and incendiary devices. If "From the river to the sea" is the aim, any means is acceptable. If pro-Palestinian protests produce this kind of response, is it different than shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Mass Attack
Twelve men were stabbed in a men's shelter in Salem, Oregon. No guns were used. Strange ... I thought guns were the problem.

Reversal on Reverse
The Supreme Court revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work ... because she was straight. Since we redefined "racism" in terms of power and "sexism" in terms of power, we've been running down this insane idea that only people in power can discriminate. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled it's not so, and that reverse discrimination does happen. We'll see how that goes.

Coming Out
The military has turned a corner and will begin banning (and discharging) transgender personnel. June 6 was the deadline to self-identify and get out. I'm baffled by this idea that anyone and everyone should have the right to serve in the military ... as if serving in the military is a basic human right. But, in today's "Me First" mentality, it make sense that "what I want" must be "what I get."

Your Best Source for Fake News
A federal judge blocked Trump from deporting the family of a Boulder terrorist (actual story), or, as the Bee reported the judge blocked deportation and required the Jews to be lit on fire. Nintendo released the new Switch 2 (actual story), so we have the report of a new virus escaping a lab in Japan causing millions of Americans to call in sick. Finally, on the Trump/Musk feud, a judge has decided Trump gets the nation on weekdays and Musk gets every other weekend and holidays.

Must be true; I heard it on the Internet.

So?

Interesting word ... "so." The dictionary defines it as "to such a great extent" or "to the same extent" or "referring back to something" or "in a way described; thus." How do those work together? Not so much, I guess. (See? "Not so much" is "not much to a great extent.") Then, as a conjunction, it's "for this reason" or "with the result that" or "and then" or "introducing a question" or "in the same way." It becomes important, I think, to figure out which is being used because it changes the meaning.

Take, for instance, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). Is that "God loved the world to a great extent"? Or is it "God loved the world in a described way"? Most of us use it in the former sense, but, as it turns out, the Greek word is specifically "in like manner." Thus, Jesus said, "God loved the world in this manner" and described the manner in which God loved the world -- by giving His Son for whomever would believe ... not a quantity ("so much"), but a quality of how God loved the world ("in this way").

There's another interesting "so" I saw recently. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). Modern translations correctly say something like "in such a way" because that "so" before "shine" is intended to convey a particular way. It's puzzling to take this verse in a vaccuum because it's easy to wonder "In what way do I do good works in order that the Father gets glory?" We find the answer in the previous verses. "You are the light of the world. A town put on a hill may be seen by all. And a burning light is not put under a vessel, but on its table; so that its rays may be shining on all who are in the house" (Matt 5:14-15). Like a light on a hill or a candle on a table, do your good works to glorify God. That is, make your life a shining example of a changed life, a sacrificed life, a life lived for Him. He's saying to intentionally make your life a beacon for others to see. So ... what will you do? (See what I did there?)

The Undead - The Sequel

We looked yesterday at "dead in sin." One of the recurring themes in Scripture is "dead to self." Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). No ... not quite "dead to self." But Paul wrote about being "crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:10) and said we should "lay aside the old self" (Eph 4:22-24). He told the Colossian Christians, "consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry" (Col 3:5). He wrote, "Consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). He urged us to "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom 12:1) and "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). There's a whole lot of "dead to self" going on here. What does that mean?

So, it appears that "dead in sin" and "deny himself" are both the same thing. In the passages above, "self" is described for us. There is "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It is "the flesh with its passions and desires." Peter wrote, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). "Self," then, is "sin." John wrote, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). That "self" -- the worldly self. The remedy for this particular "self" isn't pretty. It is ... death. One author wrote,

The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.

What we need to do, of course, is shoot him ... And if he doesn’t stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, 'til we're home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God’s plan.

What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God's pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy.

- from Connecting by Larry Crabb

We are repeatedly told to die to self. Jesus said it is a prerequisite to being His disciple. Scripture describes it as a "daily" thing (1 Cor 15:31). Is it your experience? Is it your aim?

The Undead

Paul wrote, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2). Now, what does that mean ... "dead in your trespasses and sins"? I mean, he's obviously writing to people who are currently alive, so it wasn't physical death. "No, it's spiritual dead," most concur, but what does that mean? To a lot of people it's a sort of "Princess Bride" death -- "mostly dead." That is, it's not actually death in any real sense. Anyone at any time can choose Christ, so they're not physically or spiritually dead.

One author assures us that "where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were 'dead in trespasses and sins,' he is not saying that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent." He assures us we all have the capacity to do good and to choose Christ on our own. Except ... Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Apparently a prerequisite for "believe" is being His sheep. Jesus said, "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). Note the "no one can" ... the lack of ability. Apparently "granted from the Father" is a prerequisite ... and not everyone is. (To say "X is a prerequisite" with the certainty that everyone has it is nonsense ... pointless.) Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Again, "cannot." Again, apparently there is a prerequisite ... in this case, not being merely "natural man." Spiritual death, then, is not nonexistence, but inability. It is the natural consequence of sin (Gen 2:17). Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Cannot." The requirement is not just a treatment, some therapy, some careful reasoning; it is new birth. "Dead in sin" means walking according to Satan's course (Eph 2:2), "indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:3). We naturally lack the ability not to do that.

We have a tendency to diminish the problem of death -- in particular, the biblical argument of being born ... dead. Spiritually dead. Incapable of spiritual life. And the remedy is not "try harder" or "open your eyes" or "figure it out." The answer is,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)

The solution is God's love demonstrated in making us alive with Christ when we were dead. One of those marvelous "but God" passages that is the difference between "hopelessly condemned" and "wondrously saved" ... from death (Rom 6:23). "So that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

Basis

It's complicated. So they tell me. But it is. Why do we do what we do? I hear people (on all sides) declaring why Trump is doing what he is doing (whatever it might be) and I wonder, "How do they know?" I mean, sure, sometimes he might say, but for the most part we're guessing. And that's just Trump. It's actually ... everything. So when we read the commands of Scripture, you have to ask yourself the basis of obedience. Is it duty? Is it fear? Is it selfishness? And don't even get me started on the "all of the above" answers.

There is, in Scripture, a recurring theme about why we should do what we're told to do. "Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma" (Eph 5:2) "As Christ loved you." "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "As to the Lord." "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Just as Christ also loved the church." Directly or indirectly, it seems like our reason for obedience should be ... Christ. His example. His methods. His motivation. It appears that we should be finding our reason and our operating source ... in God. Empowered by the Spirit. Led by the Spirit. "Christ in me." It seems as if our entire basis is intended to be ... Him.

Paul wrote, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3). It feels like most of us would want to answer "Yes" to that. Not verbally, but in practice. We aren't expected to drum up the power or build up the will. We aren't expected to operate on duty or fear. We are expected to be followers of Christ, operating in His power for His purposes. Kind of like, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). Yes, we participate, but for His reasons by His power under His direction.

Rabbit Trails

I'm short on time, so this will be short. We had Communion in church yesterday and I found myself musing over something. Paul records that Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor 11:25). The phrase, "as often as you drink it" caught my eye.

What do you suppose the disciples heard when He said that? What did they think He was referring to when He said "as often as you drink it"? We're all quite sure it was ... Communion. We all assume Jesus was establishing a new sacrament. But, to what does "it" refer? Does it refer to the cup He referenced during the Passover meal ... the "cup after supper"? Does it refer to any time we eat? I've never been quite clear. I suppose that's one of the reasons churches are so widely variable on how often they do it.

It's an idle speculation and I'm not making a point. Just curious. If He meant a particular cup in the Passover meal, He expected it once a year at most. If He meant "whenever you eat," He intended it to be a lot more often. I know the real point is that we remember. That's the important point. But sometimes I wander down paths in my mind ... like this one.

Paradise Lost

There is no small number of genuine believers who argue that salvation can be lost. They do so largely based on actual texts, so don't be too hard on them. One of the most common texts is in the book of Hebrews.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Heb 6:4-6)

There it is ... in black and white. Now, note, it clearly says if they fall away, they cannot be restored. That is, if this text is about losing salvation, it must be about permanent loss. If you lose it, you never get it back.

People do a variety of dances around this. "Oh, that's not talking about genuine Christians." Maybe ... but "enlightened," "tasted the heavenly gift," "shared in the Holy Spirit," and "tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" seem too far advanced to be an unbeliever. In fact, can an unbeliever fall away (The word is literally "to apostasize") ... if they never were a believer? Others have other approaches, but if you take this as a text for the loss of salvation ... it is dreadful, ominous, terrifying ... and permanent.

When I was younger, I "earned" this condemnation. If salvation can be lost, I did it in spades. I met all those criteria, and if that is a reference to salvation permanently lost, I am condemned already. So when I read, "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 ..." (Jude 1:24), I weep for joy. I see, "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) and fall on my knees in gratitude. Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:28) and I sing hallelujahs. I'm not counting on my continued godly living. I'm standing on His work alone.