The Tale of Two Trees

The tree stood alone in the garden, the only one of its kind. It was a beautiful tree. It wasn't an apple tree or a fig tree or a cherry tree. It wasn't a pine tree or a cedar. It was the Tree of of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Anyone could see that it was "good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise." And the tree, as it turned out, when Man ate of it, resulted in death for all.

The tree was an ugly tree. Rough hewn, it had no beauty of its own. It was the Tree of Death. In human terms, it represented the most horrible means of execution devised by Man. To the Son of God, it represented the worst possible suffering. He knelt in the garden and begged His Father to let Him avoid it if there was any possible way. There wasn't. And when He partook of it, it resulted in the possibility of life for all.

Adam failed to follow directions and took the fruit from the Tree of of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In that disobedience, sin came into the world. Jesus followed His Father's command and ate of the fruit of the Cross. In that final act of obedience, salvation came into the world. Today we celebrate that Cross and His Resurrection. He brought life by embracing that certain death. And His Resurrection shows us that He defeated death for us all.

We still have the option. We can embrace the Tree of of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and continue to die, or embrace the Cross and participate in life. Praise God for the two trees, and the Savior who obeyed, taking the curse for us.

Porn

One mistake that we all make is the assumption of homogeneity. Okay, so maybe most of us wouldn't use that term. We assume that we're all alike. Where I fail, I would assume you fail. Where I have no problem, I would assume neither do you. It's easy to assume that lots of other people think like I do and, when I find that they don't, I'm baffled. "What ... how could you not see that?" In subtle and unconscious ways, we assume, even though we deny it, that we're all alike.

Take, for instance, the area of pornography. There are assumptions and stereotypes at work there that will cause problems because we assume we're all alike. So, what do we assume? We assume that it's a "guy thing". We assume that guys who watch porn do so out of lust for the women they watch. So we have guys lusting after strange women and when we approach a remedy for this problem we approach those factors. So ... what if those are not the factors?

As it turns out, increasing numbers of women are becoming addicted to porn. "At Quit Porn Addiction, the UK's main porn counselling [sic] service, almost one in three clients are women struggling with their own porn use." Who would have thought? That changes the face of the problem and, thus, the solutions. And one assumption -- "it's a 'guy thing'" -- takes a hit.

Additionally, not all men who are addicted to porn (I'm using the term "addicted" not as a clinical term, but as a concept, the idea of people who struggle with the urges to involve themselves with it and cannot seem to get them under control) are lusting after the women they see. The most common response of a wife who finds her husband is battling the problem seems to be "What's wrong with me? Aren't I enough?" That may not be the valid question at all. So the fight moves away from the real problem and focuses on trying to get him to be satisfied with his wife when it's not a problem of sexual satisfaction at all. According to the Guardian article, involvement in porn "releases a dopamine-oxytocin high that has been compared to a heroin hit, and many regular users of internet porn report experiencing an almost trance-like effect that not only makes them feel oblivious to the world, but also gives them a sense of power that they don't have in real life." You see, sexual satisfaction is not the question. And another faulty stereotype will lead you down another wrong road.

Pornography is problem. For many it is a serious problem. The problem is compounded by faulty stereotypes which lead to faulty conclusions about those who are involved and faulty solutions about how to fix the problem. We have long been told that rape is a crime of power, not passion. It is my deep suspicion that it is a similar problem for many struggling with sexual addictions. And these problems are further compounded by the stigma they bear. A guy fighting urges toward pornography is anathema. A girl fighting those problems is unheard of. So where do either of these go for help?

Ladies, one thing I'd like to share with you that you might not know. Not all men are lusting after women when they fight this problem. It may not at all be about you. It may be a problem with them. Support, then, is needed, not condemnation. And to you guys who are fighting this, there's something I'd like to share with you. (This also pertains to those women who are in the same situation.) Today is Maundy Thursday, the day we commemorate Christ's trials. Tomorrow is Good Friday, the day we remember Christ's crucifixion. Christ died for your sins, including the things you struggle with most. If it is a struggle (as opposed to an indulgence, something you are a bit concerned about but not overly), then know that Christ's death was for you and for this problem (1 John 2:1-2). Repeated failures, though a big problem, are not the end of the story.

We humans have problems recognizing "harm". We have problems recognizing the problems. We have problems determining what the problem is and how to solve it. However, solutions to problems like pornography for those who are fighting those urges do exist and should be pursued. The first solution, of course, is the power and work of Christ in the believer. Beyond that, practical suggestions are out there. John Piper has a nice piece on fighting the problem that he calls ANTHEM. Good, generic approach, not too fraught with the problems of false stereotypes. Tim Challies has written a fine little book called Sexual Detox on the topic. It provides some excellent insights. You can buy it (eBook, audio, etc.) or just read it in parts (it came from posts on his blog) with all the necessary links here. I dream, of course, of an additional approach. It's my own, prompted by something silly that I once read (I just read it the other day again, which prompted this post) which said, "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:1-2). Yeah, I know, silly, isn't it? Suggesting biblical solutions to life's modern problems? But that's me, just wacky.

Dilemma

This is one of my question entries. I have a situation to examine and I'm hoping you will help me out. It is a genuine dilemma as opposed to one for which I already have an answer, so your input would be appreciated.

Here's the notion. It is an example, so if it doesn't fit your viewpoint, substitute a similar one. But since I suspect that most of my readers don't believe in infant baptism, this should fit most of my readers. So, let's say you have a brother in Christ, a genuine believer, who happens to be convinced that infant baptism is biblical and, therefore, right. He moves to a new town and is going to a church that he and his family enjoy very much. Further, the church is the only one in the area that is remotely suitable. So he decides that they should join the church. In the membership process, they find that one requirement for membership at this church is to be baptized. "But," he tells them, "I have been baptized. I was baptized as an infant." He sees this as a non-issue. It is "biblical baptism" to him and can't imagine why it would be a problem. "No," they tell him, "we only believe in 'believers baptism.' If you are going to be a member of this church, you will need to be baptized again." Now, this is a problem for him. You see, he believes that a second baptism after that one as an infant would represent a violation of faith. It would be like telling God, "I know You did it once, but it wasn't good enough. We're going to need another one." It would be an offense to God.

So you can see his problem. He can discard his beliefs and join the only church in his vicinity that provides the teaching and fellowship he and his family needs. Or he can retain his beliefs and not join the church. (Note that "joining the church" is no small matter. It is the only way in which the church allows genuine involvement like teaching, serving, ministry, that sort of stuff. It's the only way to really be part of the church.) So, assuming you disagree with his belief in infant baptism, what would you advice this friend? (If you believe in infant baptism, your approach would obviously be different. That's the "doesn't fit" part and you may need to approach the concept from a different set of particulars.)

I can see at the outset that you might set out to convince him that he needn't hold on to his infant baptism beliefs. You may try to show him that Scripture doesn't support it. You may discard his argument that the Early Church held to it. You may even suggest that his belief that a second baptism would be an offense to God is faulty. But, assuming he is not lightly entrenched in those positions, but thoroughly dug in, you're back to the beginning of the question.

So, what do you suggest? Would you tell him that he should join the church and keep his beliefs quiet and "God will forgive your offense for a good cause"? Would you suggest he go to another church which would coincide with his beliefs (assuming it's even possible) even if it means traveling a great distance and, likely, a much smaller opportunity for involvement? Or perhaps you'd be so opposed to his belief that you might suggest he repent and receive Jesus as his Savior ... and be baptized? "If you're going to hold to that belief and call yourself a Christian, I'm going to have to sever my ties with you." What would you suggest? What would you do? I really want to know because I'm not getting a clear path on this one myself.

Thieves Among Us

I get it. Some people don't like what Christianity teaches, so they don't want to be part of Christianity. I mean, that makes sense. What I don't get is that other category of people who don't like what Christianity teaches ... so they try to subvert it.

Since the beginning of Christendom there have been those who are false, those who are "from us" but "not of us", wolves in sheep's clothing, tares among the wheat. It's not new. Nor is the concept baffling. Satan will try to corrupt God's truth at every possible turn. Got it. But I just don't get this idea of "I don't like it, but I want it."

For the past month or so Rob Bell and his non-Hell and apparently Universalist views have made the news from the Internet to Time. Rob Bell and his compatriots have made an attempt to redefine Christianity while continuing to call themselves "Christians". The Time article refers to him multiple times as an "Evangelical", where the capitalized "E" denotes not that he is "giving out the good news", but that he is part of the component of Christendom known as "Evangelicalism", a part of Christianity that has aimed to more closely ally itself with the Bible and with conservative rather than progressive views of Christianity. So we read from the Time account things like this:

Bell ... suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal — meaning that, as his book's subtitle puts it, "every person who ever lived" could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be.

Bell's arguments about heaven and hell raise doubts about the core of the Evangelical worldview, changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation.

Particularly galling to conservative Christian critics is that Love Wins is not an attack from outside the walls of the Evangelical city but a mutiny from within ... "I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian," Bell says.

Now, I'm not arguing about the veracity of Bell's view. I'm not going to defend the doctrine of Hell. I've done that already, and others have as well far more capably than I have. But if Rob Bell believes that "there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian" -- if his views knowingly defy the standard view of Christianity in general and the Evangelical worldview in particular -- then I cannot fathom why he feels the need to remain within "the walls of the Evangelical city", as Time puts it. I mean, I get that he doesn't agree with historic biblical Christianity in the area of the fundamental belief in the reality of eternal punishment, but why does he feel the need to stay in the arena? Why not go his own way? Why not step out and say, "I'm no longer able to believe what the group with which I've been associated believes and I'm starting my own group"? Why steal from the Church?

Time goes on to say, "Like the Bible — a document that often contradicts itself and from which one can construct sharply different arguments — theology is the product of human hands and hearts." And there you have it. If this rightly represents Rob Bell's view, then there is no reason in the world to try to remain in the Church. Theology is the product of humans. Do what you want with it.

I don't want you to lose focus here. Rob Bell is not the issue. He's an example. New Jersey Presbyterians founded Princeton University in 1746 in order to train ministers dedicated to their views. Princeton no longer retains their views. Harvard was founded in 1636 based on Puritan philosophies. Harvard has long since lost those philosophies. Fuller Theological Seminary was founded in 1947 for the purpose of tying fundamentalism and evangelicalism to intellectual pursuits. By the 1970's it had abandoned biblical inerrancy and succumbed to "the realities of American cultural and intellectual life", issuing in the "new evangelicalism". Fuller no longer stands for what it stood for. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, was listing badly to the left until Dr. Albert Mohler became president and righted it again. In his book, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000, Iain H. Murray shows how Evangelicalism has been reshaped from integrity to the Gospel to an allegiance to "unity" and "results". As I said at the outset, the Church has endured a history of attempts at subversion from within. It still continues today.

Here's all I'm trying to figure out. If you don't like what the Church teaches, why stay in the Church? Why attempt to alter the Church? If you don't like the fact that the Church has historically, from the beginning, held that homosexual behavior is a sin, then don't be part of the Church. Do what you want. If you find the biblical claim that Christ is the only way to salvation is offensive, go whatever way you wish to whatever salvation you want, but don't try to undermine the Church. If you don't like that the Bible clearly holds to a patriarchal hierarchy, don't try to change the Church. Go ahead and form your own organization if you wish, but don't try to change the Church. It's not the same as the Reformation, where the goal was to return the Church to its earlier beliefs. Things like Hell, the sin of homosexual behavior, the respect for Scripture, the dedication to God's truth, even a patriarchy (consider the standard reference to God as "Father"), have always been part of the Church. And it's not like the racism in America fostered by some in the Church. It was not part of the Church teachings, not biblical Christianity, and by no means a fundamental, historical perspective. Sure, where the Church errs, as in those cases, it should be reformed. But when people come to Christianity with views counter to basic, biblical, historical Christianity, I cannot fathom why they think their job is to steal it from under orthodoxy. It is theft, pure and simple. I say, "Go out from among us; it will make your position clearer."

Eternal Security

One of the earliest distinctions I knew between Arminian and Calvinist theology was the notion of Eternal Security. Pure Arminians argued that salvation could and was often lost. Calvinists held to the doctrine of "Eternal Security", "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), that sort of thing. They were quite sure that, once you had been born again, you had eternal life and that meant that you had life eternal. I mean, if you could lose eternal life, in what sense was it eternal?

Well, both sides have had various manifestations. On the "conditional security" side, it appeared in most cases like you could certainly lose it if you didn't remain faithful, but if you lost it, you could get it back again. No problem. Just repent again. Poof! You're saved again. Rarely did they face the specter of Hebrews 6, although they liked to use the passage as proof against the Calvinists.

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, see? If you 'have fallen away', then you lose your salvation!" Okay, fine, but note that it says that "it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance". So if you go with "conditional security", rather than the "Once Saved, Always Saved" view, you would necessarily need to hold the "Once Lost, Always Lost" position. So some Arminians would concede the point and others would deny it.

Likewise, Calvinists vary in their view on Eternal Security. Some are happy with the OSAS view, not realizing its tacit approval of antinomianism. "It doesn't matter what you do; you can never lose your salvation." Really? It doesn't matter? What about all the warnings? Why bother, then, to be obedient at all? Are you sure you want to hold that extreme of a position? More "center" are the Eternal Security folks. They focus more on the certainty that it can't be lost without suggesting that "It doesn't matter what you do." That is, they rest on the certainty of salvation without examining the reasons for it. And, of course, then there are the "far right" types. They believe that salvation can be lost, but that it never is because God insures that it doesn't happen. That is, from a human perspective diligence and obedience and "working out your salvation" is required, but from the divine perspective, all of that happens because God is at work in His people. In this view, it does matter what you do, but in the end it is still God who accomplishes it in the Christian.

The notion of Eternal Security has always been problematic. Not that it was problematic biblically. It is a practical problem. Here's the standard complaint: "If you tell people they can't lose their salvation, they won't be obedient." That is, if you argue that we can't lose it, then you're giving people a license to sin. So how does one who believes that when Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36), He meant "has" and not "might have" or "has at least at the moment" ... how does someone like that defend this objection of license to sin? Well, usually they don't. They simply deny it. I'd like to suggest a better approach.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

This statement of John's is quite overwhelming. I suspect this is one of the reason we so rarely dwell on it. The statement has two components: There is a "does not" and a "cannot". The "does not" is the practice of sinning, and the "cannot" is "because he has been born of God". Indeed, connecting John's "born of God" concept, we also know, "Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world" (1 John 5:4). It would appear, then, that the Bible teaches that those who are true believers, those who are "born of God" -- those who have been regenerated, made new, filled with the Spirit -- that these genuine Christians cannot make a practice of sinning. Now, I'm not suggesting in the least that they can't sin. That's a given (1 John 1:8-2:1). We sin. No, it's the practice of sin that cannot be accomplished. It's the continuous, unaltered, unfettered sinning here, the habitual sin. It is contrasted with 1 John 1:9, the confession of sin. It is the position that, when faced with the fact one is sinning, would defend rather than repent of sin. "Yeah, I know it's sin, but I'm going to do it anyway and I think it's fine." According to John, this is not one born of God.

Does "Eternal Security" breed license to sin? Well, in a way, it does. It gives those who think they are saved an excuse to sin with impunity. John claims that those who are born of God cannot sin with impunity. So if it produces license, the likelihood is "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). The end game, then? "Brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10).

The Good News

Paul is famous in his letter to the Galatians for his "anathema" against false gospels.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (Gal 1:6-9).

There is, then, only one Gospel; there is not "another one". But what is that Gospel?

The context should fill you in just fine. What else does Paul focus on in this epistle? Legalism. The Gospel that Paul defends here isn't so much the "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" part, but the "what comes after" part.

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh (Gal 3:2-3)?

The portion of the Gospel that covers salvation is pretty clear. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Gal 3:6). But it is what comes after that is in view for Paul here. It is the part that comes after that is "the Gospel". Do you know what Paul is defending here against the legalists? It's not salvation. It's sanctification!

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20).

That's the Gospel. It is we who "work out your salvation" and it is we who "do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1). It is we who "through love serve one another" (Gal 5:13). There is stuff we're supposed to do. All true. But it is not we who, in the final analysis, do it. It is Christ in us.

That's the Christian life. Christ in you. It is Christ's life then lived out now in you and me. The "false gospel" that Paul was fighting was salvation by works, to be sure, but it was also sanctification by works -- full-blown legalism. The Gospel is the mysterious union of Christ and His own, where the Spirit is at work in us giving us the will and power to do what God has prepared beforehand for us to do. It is the work and rest of being a believer. It is about gratefully following our Savior without being caught in "the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world" (Gal 4:9), heirs to the Father (Gal 4:7), not under the Law, but not without it. It is Christ working in you and then rewarding you for your faithfulness. That's the Gospel. That's the Good News.

The Less Expensive Option

The recent debates (and, oh, they're not over, really) in Congress over the budget had the funding of abortion as a key component. For some reason, only the Republicans were ideologues. The Democrats' demand for the funding abortions was not ideological. For some reason, only the Republicans were obstructionist. The Democrats' requirement to fund Planned Parenthood or shut down the government was not obstructionist. For some reason, only the Republicans failed to compromise. The Democrats were happy to compromise as long as the Republicans did whatever they demanded. At least, that's what I saw. But, hey, I'm not privy to all the goings on in Washington, so who am I to say, right?

In reviewing the lies shouted from the floor of Congress (e.g., "Republicans are waging a war against women"), I wondered about the current level of federal funding for abortions in the U.S. In my research, I came across the thoughts of our beloved ACLU. It was an article on the Hyde Amendment, the one that excludes abortion funding from comprehensive health care provided for low-income Americans through Medicaid. They recommended eliminating this rule. Well, you can review the thoughts there for yourself, but I came across this thoroughly astounding statement in their commentary.

Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?

No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.

Now, without delving into the truth of their claim that it wouldn't cost the taxpayer money, did you get the underlying argument? We should allow federal funding of abortions because killing the baby is much cheaper than "childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care." Kill the baby; save some dough. I don't know ... sounds like a winning slogan for "women's health" to me.

Now, you Republicans, be honest. You Tea Party folks, check yourself. You want to decrease the deficit and cut health care costs and save America money. Why not choose the less expensive option? Kill those babies before they're born. Hey, there are other gains here. The environmentalists will be happy because less humans means less drain on our already strained environmental resources. Eliminating larger numbers of children will surely decrease the amount of childhood obesity. The cost of education will go down because the numbers of kids needing education will decrease. Oh, yeah, lots of benefits.

Is anyone really listening? Are they still going to stand on the argument that killing babies is a matter of "women's health issues"? While they accuse the "right wing" of trying to prevent women from getting the health care they need, who is defending the children's right ... to breathe? I'm pretty sure about the ACLU, but has our government completely lost its mind, too? America needs an adjustment, and it's not going to come from Congress or the White House or even the voters. And it won't likely be pretty.

Cause and Effect

The concept of cause and effect is easy to grasp, but in practice it can become hard to figure out. As an example, science tells us that in the brains of a large number of self-identified "homosexuals" there is a small abnormality. "In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men." "See?" one side cries, "They're born that way!" But we have to ask, is that a cause ... or is it an effect? Determining if something is a cause or an effect can be difficult on its own. Throw in the fact of life that there are typically groups of causes and groups of effects and further interlinking in the mix, and it can get nearly impossible to determine cause and effect.

One thing, though, of which we're quite sure -- it is the belief of millions, the certainty of just about everyone but the atheist ... even Christians believe this -- if we're good, God will love us. Cause and effect. God is pleased with good people and displeased with bad people. In Jewish terms, God turns His face toward those who obey Him and turns away from those who don't. We know this to be true. In a complex and mixed up world of cause and effect, this is something on which we can all agree.

That is, until I read this the other day at the end of Deuteronomy:

"[The LORD] loved His people, all His holy ones were in His hand; so they followed in Your steps, receiving direction from You" (Deut 33:3).

Note that this is exactly opposite of what we might expect to see. Here's what our standard view would give us: "They followed in Your steps and received direction from You, so the LORD loved His people and kept His holy ones in His hand." See? That's much better. Maybe we should check with Moses. Probably just a typo on his part, right?

No, here we see an explicit cause and effect in Scripture. According to this verse, the cause of having God's people follow God's directions is that He loves them and holds them in His hand. That is, His love and holding precedes their obedience. And, as cause and effect work themselves out, the obvious conclusion is that the love and holding of God necessarily produces the obedience of His people.

Okay, so that's a pretty bold statement, I think you'd agree, and it is just one verse. So ... is there any reason to think it might be so? Why, yes! Thanks for asking.

"You do not believe because you are not part of My flock". (John 10:26)

Therefore, my beloved, ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

In truth, that's just a smattering. There is more -- much more. It would appear that the biblical position is that God's "set-apart" (holy) people are obedient because God sets them apart and has His hand on them and not vice versa. Or, as Paul wrote to the Ephesians,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).

Thus, the cause of salvation is "the gift of God" and the effect of salvation is "good works", the product of the workmanship of God.

A Question of Drawing Skills

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself" (John 12:32).

Jesus said it. What does it mean? Well, first, you need to know why it comes up. You see, some of us believe that God is Sovereign in salvation, that He initiates the saving of the Elect by first changing their natures, that He "draws them" in a far more powerful sense than "woos" or "urges" or "calls" (note that the Greek word used is the word used for drawing water or drawing prisoners to jail -- not much of a voluntary act). Jesus said, "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). So, to counter that idea, this verse in John 12 will surface. "See?" they will say, "He draws all people, not just the Elect." And the argument is done.

Or is it? Jesus said it. What did He mean? You see, there are some problems here. Perhaps we ought not to be too quick to nod and move on. Perhaps we ought to think about it more closely.

One of the problems is not from the Reformed, but from the skeptic. "Jesus said He would draw all people to Himself. It hasn't happened. He failed." That's one concern. And there are those who answer the skeptic with "Wait, it will happen. Everyone will be saved." Problem!

There is the claim from Christ that if the Father draws someone, "I will raise him up on the last day." That requires, filtering through John 12, that all people be saved, since anyone who is drawn is raised up on the last day and all people are drawn. Problem!

There is the problem of language. If you examine the words actually used, you'll find an interesting hole in the text. The actual text doesn't say "all people" or "all men" or "all anything". It's blank. It simply says "all". All what? We've filled in "men" or "people" or the like on our own, but it's not there. And the context doesn't tell us what to fill in there. Problem!

I do think it's interesting that the writer himself tells us why Jesus said what He said here. "He said this to show by what kind of death He was going to die" (John 12:33). Wait. So He did not say this to tell the expanse of this drawing? He didn't say this to tell us the result of His being crucified? Hmm. Maybe there's a clue there. Maybe the blanket "all" should simply be interpreted in terms of the manner of His death. That is, He was not telling us what He would accomplish, but how He would die. Thus, the after-phrase simply means "When I die the way I'm telling you in advance that I'll die, I will draw to Myself all that I intend to draw." Or, "My death on the cross will accomplish what I intend it to accomplish."

Some will argue from the lack of a term after "all" that it simply means "all kinds of people" or "people from all nations". "He's talking about drawing more than just Jews here." That kind of thing. Okay. Maybe you like that.

Or, maybe He simply means what so many have thought He meant -- that His death on the cross would serve as a calling for all, a general encouragement for all to come to Him. Of course, this might be problematic on its own. Not everyone hears of His crucifixion, so it's hard to say how they would be "drawn" in this manner. Many people have no interest at all in His crucifixion, so it's difficult to say how they are "drawn" in this sense. And Jesus did say that He would raise up those who are drawn, so that would suggest Universalism again. But maybe those problems don't bother you.

I'm not offering you an answer here. Well, I've offered you possibilities. Pick one. Or make your own. I'm just pointing out that to be too light, too blithe in reading the words of Christ or the rest of Scripture can get you into trouble. Part of loving God with all our minds would include paying careful attention to His Word. God and His Word certainly deserve our careful attention. Let Scripture interpret Scripture, and be sure to be diligent to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).

Capitalization Controversy

The title sounds imperious. It isn't. The fact is there isn't much controversy over it. Well, in some circles, but they're pretty small ones.

To what am I referring? It is the capitalization of the pronouns related to God. You see, for some time it has been the convention that references to God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit as "He" or "Him" or "His" were to be capitalized. It has primarily been a matter of respect, although at times it serves as a helpful distinction when talking about God and Man in the same sentence or context. Take, for instance, Genesis 1:27. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." That's in the ESV. Notice the "he" and the "him" in the same phrase. Now read it in the NASB: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." See it? "In the image of God He" -- and the capitalization tells you it is a reference to God -- "created him" -- where the lack of capitalization tells you it is Man being referenced. Did God create Man in his own image -- Man's own image -- or in God's image? You can't tell from the ESV pronoun. So for respect and for some cases of comprehension, capitalization can be helpful.

Since it has been my convention and since I see it as a matter of respect, I was a bit surprised when the ESV didn't capitalize the pronouns for God. My NASB did. What's up with that? What kind of irreligious folks are these ESV people? And then I did my research. Turns out that these pronouns were not capitalized in the King James version either. Nor are they capitalized in any other language. They were never capitalized in the original Hebrew and Greek. They aren't even capitalized in British English. It appears, from all I can find, that it's a relatively new, American convention. I shouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist.

Okay, fine. I still see it as a matter of respect and I still think that it can be an aid in comprehension, but I'll relegate this controversy to the "personal pile". Unlike the horrors I've seen of late in spelling and grammar in common interactions, this one is quite minimal. And it's quite personal. So, if you'll agree to bear with me as I retain the capitalization of the pronouns for God, I'll agree not to think poorly of those who don't. It's not a rule of the language or even a standardized practice. Fine. Fair enough? Good. Another controversy averted.

Light out of Darkness

You're probably familiar with Jesus's statement, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). Pretty good stuff. But ... did you ever stop to think about it? I mean, why will they glory the Father if I do good works? Ah! Context! Context can answer this question.

¹¹ "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. ¹³ "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. ¹⁴ "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. ¹⁵ Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. ¹⁶ In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:11-16).

Notice the context. Jesus isn't changing subjects when He switches from "Blessed are you when others revile you" and "You are the salt of the earth." He's on the same point here. You see, when you suffer, when you are reviled, when people utter all kinds of evil against you (falsely -- that's kind of important), that's your time to shine. That's your time to spice things up. Doing good when things are easy is like hiding a light under a basket. Turning on a light in a sunlit room is likely going to have little effect. No one will notice. But when things are going wrong and you are doing good, that's when it becomes glaringly visible.

I had the opportunity some time ago to observe a woman, a sister in Christ, who was in a bad marriage. The guy was just not a nice guy. Oh, not horrible or anything, but he just wasn't very nice. The strange thing was you'd never know it to observe this woman. It wasn't that she endured it bravely. It was as if she believed hers was a good marriage. Of course, some might argue that's delusional, but consider this. If it is true that God works all things for good to those who love Him, then it would be good by that measure, wouldn't it? If we are told to "count it all joy" when we encounter trials because that is working for our best, then it would be good by that measure, wouldn't it? And if you believed that God was Sovereign, that He worked all things after the counsel of His will, then it would have to be good by that measure, wouldn't it? No, if all this is true, then it wasn't she that was delusional; it would be the rest who didn't get it. So she didn't simply endure it; she embraced it. She was joyful, a smiling face all the time. She never complained, never even winced. She didn't "bear up" or seem to tolerate her place, but thanked God for it. She actually seemed to "count it all joy."

I have to tell you, when I saw that it was easy to see what Jesus was talking about. Doing good in good times is okay, even recommended. But rejoicing in tough times? That was a beacon of light, a ray of sunshine in a dark world. That was the kind of thing that would provide salt in a bland world, that would make people take notice, that would point to the only possible answer -- God.

Doing good is ... good. Doing good in hard times is hard, but that is the best place for us to display the glory of God, to reflect the character of Christ, to make people ask, "What has she got that I don't ... and how do I get it?" It's light in darkness. In fact, it's our calling. When you go through tough times, remember that.

The Doctor's Visit

Bob was having trouble hearing. In fact, he was quite sure he had gone deaf. So he went to the doctor. "Doc," he said, "I can't hear a thing." The doctor did some tests and wrote out his prognosis for Bob. "You can't hear because you have no ears."

So there I am, reading in Deuteronomy, and I come across this from Moses to the people of Israel:

"You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deut 29:2-4).

"Oh, man, here he goes again," I can hear some of you saying. And I understand the sentiment. But ... doesn't it beg the question?

Of course I read this through the lense of the rest of Scripture that I see. It seems in perfect accord. Paul speaks without ambiguity of the unwillingness and inability of Natural Man to accept or understand the things of the Spirit of God "because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). And I understand that to mean, in Moses's terms, that the LORD has not given Natural Man a heart to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear. Jesus repeatedly told His listeners "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." In this, He speaks of three groups of people. There are those who have ears and are not listening. There are those who have ears and are listening. And there are those without ears. And there's that same echo: "The LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear." It all seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's to me. But those who disagree don't see it that way. So ... what do you see?

I know the objections. The most common, of course, are the emotional ones. It makes Man out to be incapable and it makes God out to be less than generous. The most common biblical objection is from Romans 1.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

What can be clearer? It says that "God has shown it to them", that the existence and character of God are intrinsic to humans, that "they are without excuse." I mean, if the fact was that Natural Man was unable to respond -- especially unable to comprehend -- then what sense can we make out of this passage and in what sense would Man be responsible for not responding when he can neither understand nor respond?

Of course, I've beat this dead horse before ... over and over. I have explained that the Bible says that Natural Man lacks the ability to choose Christ. I expounded on the phrase above from Jesus regarding ears and hearing. I've offered reasons from Scripture why I hold that regeneration must precede faith. So, to me, Moses's statement to Israel isn't so surprising. But many of my readers disagree.

Here's the basic premise: Human beings, even though they are "dead in sin" in their natural condition, are fully capable of seeing and hearing the Gospel -- of grasping it as far as is necessary -- and of choosing Christ. They need some sort of encouragement, some "wooing", some "drawing", something like that, but their grasp of the Gospel and their choice of Christ is fully their own in their state of slavery to sin and hostility to God and requires no fundamental change to their being to accomplish. This change occurs after they grasp the Gospel and choose Christ. (We call it "born again" or "regeneration".)

I find this position untenable. I know that Romans says that we have built into us an intrinsic knowledge of God. I even understand that the words of God are understandable, that they can be understood by all and that they are not unclear. I get that Natural Man can learn and even repeat biblical truth. I'm clear on all that. But it appears from 1 Cor 2:14 and Eph 2:1-3 and Rom 8:5-8 and so many others including this Deuteronomy passage that there is still something missing in Natural Man. Israel, in the Deuteronomy passage, wasn't unclear on either the commands or the covenant with God. They weren't unaware of God's power or authority, as at Mt. Sinai. But despite all of that, they missed what seemed to be absolutely plain and built a golden calf to worship. There seems to be something missing -- a lack of eyes and ears, a failure of the heart to understand. The signs and wonders were there. The words were clear. And they still didn't seem to get it. So the idea that we possess within ourselves all that is necessary to come to faith in Christ seems to me to contradict all this.

But to many of my readers it's perfectly clear. "No problem. What's the objection? How can you not see it? It's obvious to us!" So perhaps some of you can make it clear to me. How do you correlate "the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" or 1 Cor 2:14 or Eph 2:1-3 or Rom 8:5-8 with "we possess within ourselves all that is necessary to come to faith in Christ"? What is the impact of the lack of "ears"? What is the meaning of Paul's statement of Man's inability? If what I've said about it makes no sense to you, how do you make sense of it? I want to know. What does Bob do about his condition?

Bible Benefits

We've heard this one before: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork" (Psa 19:1). It's the hymn of natural revelation, the Old Testament version of Paul's "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them, for His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20). God is seen in creation. Got it.

I think there are a couple other parts of the psalm that are pretty commonly known as well. I have, on the side of my blog, a slightly modified version of the last verse: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer" (Psa 19:14). And I've heard a song made out of verse 10: "More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb." (I used the King James version there because those are the words of the song.) But I wonder if we ever actually looked at the middle part? The reason I ask is because the words of this song I just mentioned talk about "more to be desired are they". What is "they" referring to?

⁷ The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; ⁸ the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; ⁹ the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether (Psa 19:7-9).

What the "they" refers to is "the law of the Lord". It encompasses all of Scripture, essentially. The Law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandments, the fear of the Lord, the rules of the Lord -- all of that is in view. The psalmist claims here that God's Word in its entirety is far more desirable than gold and far sweeter than honey. Why?

The qualities of God's Word are included in this list. His Word is perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous. The benefits of immersing yourself into God's Word are also listed, and they are not minor. It speaks of reviving the soul, making simple people wise, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes.

How about you? Do you find yourself delighted with God's Word? Do you long to swim in it, to bathe in it? Is time in God's Word boring to you, or is it a wonderful thing? Or, let's compare it to your time spent in front of screens. Which is more important to you? If you have any interest in wisdom and enlightenment, any need for reviving the soul, any desire for joy, then it would seem obvious to me which of the two should be more important.

Beyond these three verses the psalmist lists one more benefit.

¹¹ Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. ¹² Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. ¹³ Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression.

How about that one? Any interest in being warned by God about sin? Any concern about your hidden errors -- sins you're not aware of? Any problems with sins that seem to beat you? Any desire to be blameless? Now, that one is big. It's a benefit of making God's Word an integral part of your life. And if you have no concern about sin in your life, I would suggest that there are bigger problems than whether or not you prefer TV to Scripture.

The Complement

Compliments, we all like them. It's nice to hear good things said about you. So if we hear that God made Eve to complement Adam, we think, "How nice! God designed Eve to recognize the good in Adam." And, of course, we've misheard the words. You see (if you followed the spelling), the two words -- "compliment" and "complement" -- sound the same (homophones), but are not the same.

We're living in a society aimed at egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the philosophy of "equal", so you'd likely say, "So?" Egalitarianism is the belief in the equality of all people, with special attention to economic, social, and political life. "We say again, 'So?'" There is even "Christian egalitarianism", a movement within Christendom that stresses gender equality -- the idea that there are no gender-based limitations of what functions or roles male or female can fulfill in the home, the church, and the society. "We're still waiting ... so?"

A nation built on equality seems a suited place for egalitarianism, and we do embrace the notion that "all men are created equal" and even that the "men" in that phrase means "people" (not just males). It seems that we've pushed the envelope of "equal" farther than the Bible and, much more importantly, God intended. But, I am not writing this to debate egalitarianism. I'm writing this to make a point about the complement.

The counter-view to egalitarianism is complementarianism. Now, I favor complimentarianism -- the belief (that I just made up) that people should express appreciation for the good things they see in others. That's not complementarianism. Complementarianism is the belief that God designed men and women as complementary, two halves that make a whole. A "complement" is that which completes what is lacking in another. In a complementary arrangement, the pieces are of equal value, but they simply differ in skills, abilities, roles, and the like. It's not about worth. In 1 Cor 12, Paul describes the body of Christ like a physical body comprised of different components. He is clear on two essential points. First, there are different parts with different roles and functions. Second, they are all of equal value. That is complementarianism. And it's biblical.

Of course, the term is used almost exclusively to refer to gender roles, so let's limit the discussion to that. And, in fact, I'm not even thinking about the debate of whether or not wives should submit to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6), or whether or not women should take authority over men in the church (1 Tim 2:12-14) or any of that kind of "patriarchal" structure (1 Cor 11:3). No, that's not my point. What I'm thinking about (get ready for a leap) is eHarmony. ("Okay, we're not asking 'So?' ever again. That was a huge leap.") I know, but follow me. What is it that we look for in our relationships? Isn't the aim "compatibility"? That's what eHarmony offers. They've even registered the term and patented their "Compatibility Matching System". And I'm quite sure you've heard of their (again, registered) phrase, "29 Dimensions of Compatibility". Wow! Makes you just warm all over, doesn't it? So while those inferior sites offer a picture and a phrase, you can find out if you are truly compatible with someone and that makes for a long-term relationship ... right?

Funny thing. When God made Eve, He didn't speak in terms of compatibility. He spoke in terms of complement.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18).

What interesting language! First, we see that Man (Adam) had shortcomings. Obviously one was that he was alone, and "alone" was not good (the first thing in God's creation that He said was "not good"). But clearly there was more because he needed a "helper". Beyond that, we see that his particular shortcomings were individual because Eve was designed to "fit" his particular needs. I know, I know, egalitarians are dancing about cutting themselves and calling down curses. (Okay, over the top, I know, but you get the idea.) This sounds like I'm suggesting that Eve was "less" somehow. That's like saying, "A car is valuable, but the gasoline required to run it is 'less somehow'." Yeah, right, try running the car without it and see how valuable that car is. In fact, in pure terms of money, if a car cost $25000, ran for, say, 200,000 miles, and got, say, 30 miles per gallon, at current prices you'd have spent about the same amount for the gas as for the car. No, this is not about value or worth. It is about ... complement. It is about filling what is lacking, about helping, about bridging the gaps, about making two halves into a whole. According to Genesis, that was God's design.

Imagine, then, a different approach. Imagine a fellow who, instead of seeking a "compatible mate", thought, "What do I have to offer to a potential mate?" You see, the concept of "complement" is not "We're the same", but precisely "We're different", and the differences are the gaps we can fill for each other. Imagine that kind of thinking rather than "compatibility" thinking. Imagine a single guy who approaches his relationships with women in terms of his shortcomings that match her strengths. Doesn't that elevate her value? And to the married I say this. Since I believe -- and Scripture seems to say -- that God works all things after the counsel of His will, then I'd have to believe that my spouse is God's will for me, and your spouse is God's will for you. Therefore, it would seem, if God's design carries through, that he or she is intended as your complement. Sure, sure, we need some compatibility, some commonality. For starters, we need to share a common Savior. But is it possible that, in our rush to compatibility and our embrace of egalitarianism, that we're missing a key intent that God has built into marriage in general and our spouses in particular? Is it possible that the differences are just as precious as the similarities? Is it possible that your spouse was designed by God to make your half into a whole? Well, I ask the question, but I would contend that it isn't a possibility; it's a certainty. Now, if we could learn to appreciate that in our spouses, I think it would be a good thing.

Unjust Consequences

It used to bother me a great deal. I knew that God promised eternal torment to unrepentant sinners. I knew that Hell was for eternity. I got all that. But ... why? How was it a just consequence that a life of temporal sin would result in an eternal punishment?

There came a time that it dawned on me that I was thinking about it all wrong. I was equating the time of the sin with the time of the punishment, and that made no sense at all. With that kind of thinking, the courts would say, "Well, it took him 10 minutes to kill the guy, so he is going to spend 10 minutes in prison." Of course that makes no sense. We all understand that the punishment for a transgression isn't based on the time it took to commit it, but the heinousness of the crime. Theft can be done just as quickly as murder, but they receive radically different consequences because theft is against property, but murder is against a person. (As a side note, if we're going to argue that human beings are simply biochemical bags, the product of Evolution, then our current system of justice is going to have to be revolutionized because terminating the life of a biochemical bag called "human" would be no more egregious than terminating the life of a biochemical bag called an ant. Just a thought.)

So, we understand that the seriousness of the crime determines the penalty. That's clear. We got it. So I came to think of sin as not merely "doing bad things", but in terms of Treason. And not merely in terms of Treason like it would be against a nation, but as Treason against the Most High -- a sort of Cosmic Treason. And while Treason against a temporal nation is punishable by temporal death, Treason against the eternal God would be rightly punishable by eternal death. Okay, I guess I see that.

But I still didn't get it. I mean, I thought it was clear, and I was good with that, but it has become much clearer to me as time has progressed. Consider this. If the purpose of the universe is to glorify God (Psa 19:1; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 2:10; 1 Cor 10:31), then what does this tell you about the worth of the glory of God? You see, we're human. Being both finite and sinful, we can't even fully grasp the glory of God and we fall short. The crime is monumental. The affront is vast. It is an assault on God, His glory, the entire universe. As bad as some crimes are that we recognize, this one eludes us in its magnitude. And since we tend to side with fallen Man rather than Sovereign God, we can, when faced with the specter of eternal torment, begin to think, "That's not fair!"

Don't go there. You don't want "fair". It is not justice that you seek. The stark demands of justice would require that each and every one of us spend eternity in torment. If that sounds harsh, you've missed the enormity of the crime. Maybe, just maybe, if we can begin to pay attention to the vastness of God's glory and begin to get a taste of it, we can begin to see how far off we are and how right Hell is. Then it wouldn't be Justice that we desire. It would be Mercy that we would crave, and salvation would breed overwhelming gratitude.

Morally Culpable

Are human beings morally culpable for the natural disasters we see? That seems to be a big question. Oh, you've likely never heard it put that way. More like, "Are tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and the like God's punishment for sin?" When Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, there were Christian voices that assured us it was. You know ... all that illicit gambling and such going on there. Really, that was their position. I suppose that Las Vegas is too well situated for anything like an earthquake or a hurricane or, boy, let me tell you, God would give them such a whooping!

Well, I suppose my sarcasm has let the cat out of the bag. I'm going to argue that this is not my position. Well, sort of.

There were some present at that very time who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And He answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-5)

I'm just guessing here, but it looks to me like it's not Christ's position, either. In this instance, horrible stuff happened to people. Pilate murdered some Galileans in one case and in the other a tower fell in Siloam. Note that we have two "types" here. One is man-made. Pilate killed people. The other is natural. A tower fell. And in both cases the proper response, according to Christ, is not, "It happened because they were evil."

Now, I need to be clear here. In both cases, the proper response was "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Thus, there is a sense in which we are morally culpable for natural disasters. But it's not because New Orleans was a sinful place that Katrina struck. According to Jesus, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." And according to Paul, "the creation was subjected to futility" and needs to be "set free from its bondage to corruption" (Rom 8:20-21). That is, because of Man's sin, creation suffers from corruption. This kind of stuff in general wouldn't happen if Adam hadn't sinned. So there is that sense of culpability.

Keep in mind, however, that there is another reason for this kind of thing. This is an important reason. When the disciples encountered a man who was born blind, they made the same assumption that those Christians made after Hurricane Katrina: The only reason that this kind of stuff happens is due to their sin. So they asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2). Can you imagine? Apparently they were right there, within earshot. Nice. But Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3). So, while the man and his parents were indeed sinners, this event was not a direct product of their sin. No, the intent behind this problem was "that the works of God might be displayed in him."

It could be that I'm being too vague here. Let me put it another way. We are commanded, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Since this universe was constructed for the glory of God and all that occurs in it is for the glory of God, I'm pretty sure that God Himself will do what we are commanded -- do all for the glory of God. Therefore, as in the case of the man born blind, it is my contention that all that occurs, whether it is a surprise promotion or a devastating earthquake, the outcome, whether or not you see it or recognize it, will be to the glory of God. Now, if you're one who doesn't care a whit about God's glory, then that's not such great news, but for those of us who are deeply delighted by the glory of God, that ought to give us great encouragement on one hand and, on the other, point out how far off we are in our thinking when we miss that realization in tough times.

Are human beings morally culpable for the natural disasters we see? Only in the general sense. God may be judging a nation or correcting a saint, but really, at the end of the day, that's not the idea. The real idea is that it's not about you. It's about God. That works for me.

What is this thing called Atonement?

One of the basic Christian doctrines debated today is the doctrine of the Atonement. Just using that word will cause a stir of dissent in some. "'Atonement'," they will say suspiciously, "just what do you mean by that?" As it turns out, the doctrine has been debated for a long, long time. The debates go quiet at times, but then resurface. Welcome to the reemergence.

Now, those of us who are right (that's humor) would like to say, "We're simply answering from the Bible", but those who disagree will argue, "You're only answering from your understanding of the Bible", and we'd be at an impasse. So I'll show the Scriptures, lay out the possibilities, and let you decide.

First, the Scriptures. The "Atonement" concept comes from the Old Testament. "Every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement" (Exo 29:36). Just an example. There are lots more where that came from, but you get the idea. The Hebrew word is kippur. (Yom Kippur is "the Day of Atonement".) The root word references a covering, and this word means "to expiate". There you go, clear as day. Okay, "expiate" means "to appease", "to extinguish guilt", "to make amends". That's the Old Testament version.

In the New Testament the same thought is carried into the Greek texts. Here the word is hilasterion, as in, "[We] are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:24-25). Greek word, same concept -- the appeasement of wrath. You'll find that also in Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10. Thus, the biblical concept of "atonement" is rooted in the idea of appeasement in both Old and New Testaments. The idea there is that God's wrath is justly toward sinners, and that wrath needs to be appeased.

Note, however, that in that passage from Romans 3 there is another word -- "redemption". This term is part of the whole concept of Atonement. Now, we use the term in English somewhat loosely. We can say that something has "no redeeming value" and mean nothing having to do with any real idea of "purchase". We can "redeem coupons" by turning them in. Nothing really paid there. But that's not the case in either the standard use of English or in the Greek for this word. There are a couple of Greek words behind these instances. The one in Romans 3 is apolutrosis, which means "to pay a ransom". In Gal 3:13 we read, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." That one is exagorazo which means quite literally "to buy off the market". That is, in this term the idea is to buy from the market so that it is no longer available for sale. So, included in "Atonement" is the concept of "Redemption". In English and in Greek, "redemption" means "to buy or pay off" or "to clear by payment." It is a purchase.

Okay, that's the Scripture, and there is a lot of it. So what about history? What have they said? Well, the original idea of the Early Church Fathers was called "the Ransom View". They suggested that when Man fell, Satan gained certain rights to Mankind (you know, as in "enslaved to sin"). Christ, then, paid the ransom for those under Satan's domain. Now, there were arguments about to whom the ransom was paid (was it God or was it Satan?), but that was the popular early version.

Anselm in the 11th century suggested the "Satisfaction" theory. Here's the basic idea. God deserves absolute obedience from His creation. We fail miserably at it. This is why Christ had to become human. The God-Man was required because on one hand a human was required to supply perfect obedience and on the other hand this satisfaction must be infinite (since it is God's satisfaction), so God was required to supply it. Thus, the God-Man, Christ, who died for sins He never committed, perfectly and completely satisfied the just demands of God for perfect obedience and, in that sacrifice, merited a reward which was the forgiveness of the sins of those who come to Christ.

In the 12th century Paul Abelard rejected Anselm's view and preferred the "Moral Influence" perspective. In this one Christ's death was an act of such supreme moral purity that it affects those who see it. When sinners see this absolute demonstration of God's love for sinners, they will respond in love to God. How this view is "atonement" is beyond me, but there it is for your perusal.

The more common view today came from Reformers. Called "Penal Substitution", it is the idea that Christ paid the penalty for my sin. The wages of sin is death, we know, and instead of me dying, Christ took that payment on my behalf.

A newer one on the scene bears a name long associated with the older "Ransom" view -- "Christus Victor". It is not the same view, but because they call it something that was associated with the old one, they say "It's the view of the early fathers." It's not. This idea surfaced in 1931 in a book by Gustaf Aulen entitled Christus Victor. He claimed that this was the original view, then went on to explain that the original view (the "Ransom" view) was inaccurate when thought of as a ransom -- a financial transaction of sorts -- but was actually the idea of the victory of Christ. Nothing was paid here. There was no transaction ("Ransom"). No satisfaction of justice ("Satisfaction") or the like was involved. It's just that Christ won. At the cross, Christ defeated the power of the Law, since condemnation of a perfect man was unjust. Victory! (I have to mention that this cracked me up. According to this account, "While largely held only by Eastern Orthodox Christians ... the Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with ... liberal Christians and peace churches such as the Anabaptist Mennonites because of its subversive nature ..." Really? Because it is "subversive"?)

Well, there you have it. First, there is the biblical content. The components you must fill are, according to Scripture, 1) the appeasement of the wrath of God ("propitiation") and 2) buying the sinner off the market ("redemption"). With those components you can decide what sort of view you will take. Perhaps you like the Ransom theory, although you'll have to decide to whom the ransom was paid. Or maybe it's the Satisfaction theory where God's just demands were satisfied in Christ. Or, perhaps, incorporating all that, you see the Penal Substitution idea as the best in that Christ paid our debt and satisfied God's just demands. Maybe you discard all these "appeasement" and "redemption" ideas and prefer just to think that we were given an amazing display of God's love in the Moral Influence theory, or maybe that Christ's death simply broke the power of sin by suffering an unjust death as in the Christus Victor concept. If either of these is your choice, you'll have to figure out on your own how you connect those to "Atonement" or "Redemption". But there are the general options. Enjoy picking your favorite. May I take this opportunity to encourage you to take a biblically-informed position?

Riots Claim 20 Lives

According to the Telegraph rioting continues in Afghanistan over the burning of the Qur'an by a "fundamentalist cleric" in Florida. (Seriously, where does that phrase come from to describe the Reverend Crackpot Terry Jones? He is neither a cleric nor connected at all to the fundamentals of Scripture.)

Responses are scattered. Some senators are of the opinion that we have too many freedoms in this country, and perhaps, since we're at war, we ought to limit the freedom of speech. There is silence from the Muslim world, as seems to be always the case when radical Islam goes crazy and kills people. President Obama condemned the burning as an act of "extreme intolerance and bigotry." The pastor in Florida has precious little support from the Christian realm, and he knows it. He considers himself a radical Christian. Unlike Islam, Christians are denouncing his act of foolishness. Doug Wilson is concerned that while lawmakers are attacking our freedom of speech, no one seems to be denouncing the rioters. Meanwhile, Terry Jones has assured the media outlets that he's not responsible for those riots. "We are devastated by that information," he said. "We don't feel responsible for that." Who is? "The radical element of Islam takes that as an excuse to promote their violent activities." Ah, I see. Any excuse in a storm. Is that it? Thankfully, Jones has no plans to burn any more Qur'ans. Of course, he said he wasn't going to burn any in the first place (after saying he would), so I have to wonder how reliable this pastor is.

A lot there, and not all of it, in my view, is sane. The rioting in Afghanistan is horrendous. It was not simply a response to an act of stupidity. It was fomented by imams who took more than a week to get it started. (Jones put the Qur'an on trial and burned it March 20th, and the riots took place April 1st.) Time enough to let intelligent people get over the nonsense if they were going to get over it, but that didn't happen. The rioters and their goads deserve condemnation. The response of government with things like "too much freedom", "limit free speech" is really off. How does this work? When things get ugly, we remove freedoms? We suspend the Bill of Rights when we don't like the consequences? Nor does the president's "extreme intolerance and bigotry" get it either. This assumes equal footing. The Qur'an and the Bible and whatever other "sacred Scriptures" you'd care to point at are all of equal value, worthy of acceptance, and this can only be denied if you are a bigot. That's not right. But neither is Jones to be exonerated. His act of stupidity has resulted in death for innocent people in harm's way. That's criminal.

I would oppose removing freedom because the consequences are tough. On the other hand, everyone knows that your freedom of speech is limited. We already know, for instance, that free speech doesn't apply if there is a "clear and present danger". If you shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you would be guilty of the death and damages. How is this different in the case of the Florida pastor? He was warned that his actions would cause this result. He was notified of the clear and present danger. He chose to go ahead with it. "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion" aside, his acts constitute, in my view, criminal behavior. I can't see how it is anything less than negligent homicide. Criminally negligent homicide is in play when a person manifests extreme indifference to human life. Terry Jones did just this. So, why are there not criminal charges pending?

It seems easy in this country to get stuck on one side. The president wants to be sure we're tolerant of Islam without any reference to truth. That is, "equally protected" means "equally valid". Wrong. Tolerance -- the genuine kind were we allow that with which we disagree -- is needed, but it isn't bigotry to disagree. Jones's freedoms may have allowed the events, but limiting freedom because he abused it isn't the answer. Fear of Islam can be a real, even rational thing -- just ask Salman Rushdie -- but saying nothing about it is wrong. And allowing criminal behavior in the name of "free speech" (or even classifying him as a "fundamentalist cleric" or a "Christian") is just as wrong. It seems like there are lots of things to be said here. But condemning the violence and prosecuting the criminal behavior doesn't appear to be on the agenda anywhere.

The World of the Screen

According to a study published in January, 2010, the average 8-to-18-year-old spends 10 hours and 45 minutes in front of a screen. Now, to be fair, some of that is multitasking. That is, they're listening to music and watching TV or working on their computer while watching a show. So the actual screen time is closer to 7 hours and 38 minutes ... a day. Much better, right? This is a vast number when you subtract meal time and sleep time. Unfortunately, adults aren't any better. Between working on computers at work and home time with computers, TV, and so on, they're just as likely to be in front of a screen as their children. So?

Let me first say as clearly as I can that the Internet, TV, DVDs, phones, gaming -- this stuff is not inherently sinful. That is, I am not suggesting or even thinking that it is a sin to watch TV (for instance). Some can be and some may not be. I'm not going there. It may seem like I am, but I needed to say up front that this is not the direction I'm headed. So pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

So, having established that, I am now about to lay out some reasons that you might want to consider severely curtailing the amount of time you (believers) spend in front of a screen.

Physical Ramifications

According to studies, the medium of screen technology is harmful to young children. That's the medium, not the content. To the developing little brains, the flashing images and sound and the necessary singular focus causes developmental problems. Children exposed to television before the age of 3 face potential problems with language development, autism, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Okay, so most (how's that for an understatement?) of my readers aren't under the age of 3. See? That first one was easy, right? Unless, of course, you're a parent of a little one. Then there's something in to think about.

Temptation

Paul seemed fond of writing in absolutes. He wrote to the church at Rome, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Rom 13:14). Now, it doesn't take a genius to realize that "sex sells". So how long can you watch TV or a movie or cruise the Internet without being hit with an ad selling products with sex? It's no longer subtle. We've "progressed" to the point that women in underwear and children in sexy outfits is common place. There is little sense of propriety anymore. Just cruising along on Facebook or checking your email, in fact, can get you some pretty risque stuff to see. Paul said no provision. What part of "no" don't we understand?

Redeeming the Time

To me, this is really big. Well, not just me. Paul wrote, "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil" (Eph 5:15-16). Here's the question I need to ask (and it's not just you I'm asking; it's me): What else could you be doing in the hours you spend in front of the television, computer, etc.? What family activities are you missing? Is your personal entertainment time a higher priority than your time with God? With family? I read that the person you are now and the person you are in 10 years is the same, with the exception of the books you read. How about reading? Are you making the best use of your time by sitting in front of a screen? Hey, I didn't say it. It was Paul, under the inspiration of God. You decide.

Where Your Mind Is

Paul told the church at Colossae "Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth" (Col 3:2). To the Philippians he wrote, "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Phil 4:8). We are commanded "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). How we think is of paramount importance. We are to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" ( 2 Cor 10:5). Thinking is important, and the content of most of what we have available on television, the Internet, your favorite video game, and so on does not fall in the categories of Philippians 4:8. So, where are you letting your mind dwell?

Now, as I said, I have not said that time in front of a screen is, by definition, sinful. I even think that there can be some value in carefully considered, well-measured, cautious time in front of a television for relaxation or a computer for, oh, I don't know, blogging, or the like. I am simply recommending two things. First, give it some thought. Perhaps a lot of thought. These are not minor or small issues. Examine the content. Think about where you're taking your mind, your temptations, your time. Second, see if you can limit your addiction. You know, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:21). I'd almost be willing to bet that you won't get to heaven and tell God, "Oh, I wish I'd spent more time in front of that TV!" Just a thought.

Worship God's Way

If God was to design His own worship, what would it look like? Well, we're not left to guess.

^4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."

^4:2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. ^4:3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. ^4:4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads. ^4:5 Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; ^4:6 and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. ^4:7 The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. ^4:8 And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME." ^4:9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, ^4:10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ^4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

^5:1 I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. ^5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?" ^5:3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it. ^5:4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it; ^5:5 and one of the elders *said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."

^5:6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. ^5:7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. ^5:8 When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. ^5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ^5:10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

^5:11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, ^5:12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." ^5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." ^5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

To those who find worship "irrelevant" and "boring", I have to say, "You're doing it wrong." And let me just say this about the rest. If you can give me a taste of this, a hint of this, a little flavor of this on Sunday morning, I will worship through the week. And I have to be honest. A worship band with guitar and drums is going to have to work really, really hard to give me a taste of worship done God's way. I will settle, however, for the structure -- where God on His throne is the central core (notice how many times "the throne" is mentioned as the reference point for the entire thing) and the Lamb is its theme. Easy, right?

Depravity

I've argued for the doctrine of Total Depravity. I've argued that not only is it true that all have sinned, but that all are sinners at their core. I've argued that Natural Man is dead in sin, inclined only to evil. I've even argued that Paul was exactly right when he said, "There is none who does good; no, not one." "Hyperbole!" cries one, and "Symbolism!" another. I've argued that it is literally true of Natural Man.

Here's the position I take. From God's perspective, the universe was created to demonstrate His glory. Thus, anything that is not done for God's glory, no matter how "nice" it is, is not, by God's definition, good. And I've been challenged to give biblical reasons for such a position. So, here it is.

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).

Whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

These are comprehensive statements. First, "Do all to the glory of God. Thus, anything not done to the glory of God is a violation. The second is just as complete. If someone is outside the faith, nothing they do is "from faith" and is, therefore, by definition "sin". If you can find an exception in there, let me know.

But Scripture doesn't stop there. We know "For all have sinned", but we miss what the problem is. We "fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). That's the "sin", the shortfall. It's not failing "goodness". It's a failure to achieve the glory of God.

Isaiah is equally clear. The best we can do is filth.

All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment (Isa 64:6).

That's it. That's the best. Our righteous deeds are filthy rags.

"Stan, you're being too hard on Man. They're bad, sure, but not that bad." I know you'd like to say so. I know I would, too. But God disagrees. The only "good" we can do is glorify God, and no amount of human good rises above the level of filthy, as good as we'd like to think it is. That is "Total Depravity" -- the basic problem for which the "Good News" is needed. At least, that's what the Bible says.

What Will God Do?

One of the biggest drums I keep beating is the Sovereignty of God. I see God as absolutely Sovereign. While many Christians lean toward a deist view where God mostly lets things go on as they will and many more lean toward a view of sovereignty that still leaves Man in charge, I see God as an absolute Sovereign. Nothing happens if God doesn't approve or cause it. He is, then, the First Cause of all things. Note my superlative terms in those last two sentences -- "nothing" and "all things".

This, of course, doesn't sit well with a lot of Christians. (Of course it doesn't sit well with non-Christians, but since they hate God, it's irrelevant if they have an absolutely clear concept of God's Sovereignty.) I know it runs up against many of our own beliefs, so I thought I'd show you some things that Scripture tells us God will do.

"I will go before you and make the rough places smooth; I will shatter the doors of bronze and cut through their iron bars. I will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden wealth of secret places, so that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name. For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me" (Isa 45:2-4).

We're good with that. God makes rough places smooth and gives treasures and calls you by name and all that stuff. Nice, really nice. But I stopped at verse 4. Read on to get a bigger view of what God says He does.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa 45:5-7).

Yeah, yeah, all good. Forms light, causes well-being ... but, wait! What was that other stuff?? Yes, God says that He creates darkness and -- get this -- calamity. While we're busy burbling about trying to figure out where earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and all that stuff comes from, God says, "Did you see that? That was Mine. I did that." He confirms this in Amos:

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6).

That's God's claim. "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" Now, Bryan McClaren writes, "God’s sovereignty is not totalitarian. God isn’t the kind of king interested in absolute control. God wouldn’t create that kind of relationship with the universe because God isn’t that kind of God. Instead, God creates space and time for a universe to be, to become, to unfold in its own story, its own evolution. God’s kingship is God’s absolute commitment to be with us, whatever happens, always working to bring good from evil, healing from suffering, reconciliation from conflict, and hope from despair." (How, pray tell, is a God who "creates space and time for a universe" that unfolds its own story without actually being sovereign there some sort of "hope from despair"?) I'm quite sure that McClaren expresses what a lot of people, even Christians, believe. But it's not what the Bible says.

How about Solomon's claim?

The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov 16:4).

We're all good with "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose", but what about the rest? The secondary phrase will trip us up. "The LORD has made ... the wicked." That's what it says. Did you know that was His claim?

Some might complain. "Now, wait! If God makes the wicked, how is that fair?" God offers a proper response.

"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker -- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'" (Isa 45:9-10).

We don't get that option. We don't get to quarrel with the Maker. The idea that we think we do is a product of our own rebellion, the worship of the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalms tells us in two places:

Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases (Psa 115:3).

Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps (Psa 135:6).

Got that? He does whatever He pleases. We don't get to tell Him "That's not fair!" or "That's not right!" He does whatever He pleases. He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). And if it pleases Him, on what basis can we say, "No, that's wrong!"?

Here's one I found that was quite astounding. According to the prophet Isaiah,

They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend (Isa 44:18).

Now, doesn't that blow your mind? No? Maybe you didn't get it. Isaiah was saying that there are people in the world that do not know or understand God's truth. Yes, we get that. But Isaiah goes a step further. The reason they don't get it is that "He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend." God did it. Now, of course, we have that whole "people choose to defy God" and "people are going to Hell because of their own rebellion" and all that. True. And Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened his heart. Right. But we've been told that God is trying to save as many people as He can, and Isaiah, speaking for God, says, "No, that's not true. God is actually preventing some from seeing and comprehending."

Do you know what I think? I think that our God is too small. I mean the God that we carry around. The one we claim. It seems to me that the One who has revealed Himself to us in the pages of Scripture is much larger than we realize. Perhaps we need to expand our thinking on what God will and will not do.