God is in Trouble

Look around you. The Internet is full of it. But it's in your country, your state, your town, maybe even your home. God is in trouble. As it turns out, He has lots of enemies and apparently He has a lot to answer for.

"I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am."

"If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God."

"I am not interested in any God that is not completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving."

In his NPR piece entitled "There Is No God" Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) says, "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us..."

These are popular objections for many. They are commonly used to refute the existence of God, but more often simply to personally choose to ignore Him. They will not settle for anything less than "hard scientific evidence." They cite wisdom like "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" or "If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it." You've all heard the complaints, "If God is omnipotent ..." followed by some impossibility. You know ... " ... can He make a rock too big for Him to pick up" or some such. Most of all, of course, God is on trial for His problems with His image. You see, "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust."

One of the hottest contested areas in the field of theology is known as "theodicy," the branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. The question: How can a good, kind, loving, just, omnipotent God allow the evil we see around us? Not many unbelievers care much for the answers. However, I would suggest that the questions are all wrong.

Being humans, prone to self-centeredness (oh, how we've turned that into a trite little term rather than the ominous evil that it is), we tend to think of God from ourselves rather than vice versa. So God, if He is to be good, must be "at least as compassionate as I am," as if I am the standard of compassion. We would hear, "If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God," as if we should have the right to declare what is right for God. (It isn't, by the way, an accurate statement to say that Gandhi would go to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff.) We create our own measure of "good" and "loving" and "forgiving" and, oddly enough, "perfect," then declare that God falls short.

I would suggest the reverse. It's interesting what we can learn from etymology sometimes. The question is whether or not there is such a thing as a "good God" in view of the evil we see. But etymologically speaking, the thing we are seeking is the same thing. The word "good" is premised on the word "God". In other words, God is good. He defines it. Without Him it does not exist. And, of course, without good, we have no concept of evil. Therefore, without a "good God", the entire question falls apart.

It isn't a satisfactory answer for unbelievers, but it doesn't make a difference. The truth is that God is not measured by justice; He is justice. He is not measured by good; He is good. He is not compared to love; He is love. Without God, none of this is, and the entire question goes away.

You see the problem, I hope. The problem is that we typically start with ourselves. We are the standard by which everything else is measured. If God does not measure up to the standards we choose, God fails. Never mind that we have no right or ability to make such standards, nor any reason to believe that God should measure up to them. Take, for instance, the demand for "hard scientific evidence." Demanding that we provide natural evidence for a supernatural being is simply nonsensical. It's like claiming that sound doesn't exist because I can't see it or light doesn't exist because I can't hear it. The supernatural, by definition, is outside of the realm of science and, therefore, by definition beyond the realm of "hard scientific evidence." Yet, it is the standard we are required to meet. It is, in short, the fundamental problem of human nature: "I will be like the Most High."

More

I recently read a post from Peter Beddow about experiencing God. In his piece he gives one person's experience, Ilona, who experienced meeting God. On the other hand, he describes his own experience where he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but didn't feel anything. He says, "I have never been able to shed the doubts about that experience, and though I still retain the ability to speak in that new language, I still ask God whether it is His Holy Spirit or whether I've created it out of my pride."

I understand this. My experience is slightly different, but I understand the sentiment. Years ago I was close with some people who believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. Now, not wanting to limit God in any way, despite the fact that I had never seen this concept in Scripture, I went with them to see if God had more for me than what I currently had received. It was a Wednesday night service, and the pastor invited anyone who wanted to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues to come down to the front and be prayed over.

Well, along with the three other people with me, we went on down. The pastor instructed us, before he started to pray for us, to babble. We were to speak in "baby talk." It was like priming the pump. We would start the babbling, but God would take over when the Spirit came upon us. So we started, and the pastor started praying. The three others with me received the Spirit with tongues, but eventually I gave up the babbling and went back to my seat with the rest, rejected.

What happened? Why did God reject me? I came to Him with open heart and fervent prayer and a desire for everything He wanted for me. I didn't let past teaching or beliefs get in the way. I didn't allow for doubt or questioning. I went up for it all, and came back with nothing. My friends, on the other hand, came back dancing in the Spirit.

These questions plagued me for years. I pushed them aside without answers, but they still were nagging at me. Did I block God? Or did God reject me? Or was I just not good enough? I answered the questions with biblical responses and that eased things for me, but it still felt bad. Then one day God pointed out the outcomes. One of the others who had received this special blessing had degenerated into lunacy. I'm not being trite. She literally lost her mind. The other threw Christianity out the window, embraced blatant, overt sin, cursed God, and today lives a sad, lonely existence. Me? I love the Lord more today than ever before, have a lovely wife whom I love dearly, and am still hard after all that God has to give me. How is that possible? How is it that they could receive more from God than I and they have such poor outcomes?

I don't have answers for that. I don't wish to cast aspersions on the experiences of others. I certainly don't want to suggest that "the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues" is a false experience. What I do believe is that, rather than being something "more", it is often the result of an experience-seeking mindset that is not satisfied with truth and seeks, instead, something beyond what God intends. Paul says, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil. 3:8), and prayed "that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10-11). For Paul, knowing Christ was the highest possible thing. To many Christians, personal experience is the highest possible thing. Paul longed to know the suffering and death of Christ. Many Christians simply seek the sweetness. A missionary once wrote this: "My goal is God Himself. Not joy or peace or even blessing, but Himself, my God. 'Tis His to lead me there - not mine, but His. By any road, dear Lord, at any cost." That, too, is my prayer.

Do Not Love the World - 1 John 2:15

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD! (Isa. 31:1).

It happened more than once to Israel. They faced enemies that outnumbered them. The odds were bleak. Their options were limited. The outcome was fairly certain, and it was failure, destruction. So Israel would often take up alliances with godless nations around them. Find strong armies to help defend them. That would protect them. The result, of course, was always the same. Their "wise approach" proved no help whatsoever. Instead of fending off disaster, they received it double.

One of the brightest exceptions was King Jehoshaphat. The Moabites and the Ammonites joined to go to war against Jehoshaphat. His choice of action? Pray (2 Chron. 20:3-4). God told Jehoshaphat, "Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's" (2 Chron. 20:15). Jehoshaphat followed God's instructions and developed a different battle plan than the oft repeated, always failed approach of others of joining with the godless. He took the people to a hill overlooking the approach of the enemy, called up the choir to sing, and watched God annihilate their enemies (2 Chron. 20:20-24). All they had to do was go down to their encampment and pick up the spoils. Not a bad approach.

As the 20th century was winding down, Christian "prophets of doom" began warning of the impending demise of the Church. "If we don't come up with new techniques, the Church will vanish by the early 21st century." It was a dire prediction from the likes of George Barna, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and many, many more. The response of the Church, largely, was not prayer, but an alliance with the world. Take up the world's techniques. Use their marketing methods. Join in their entertainment mentality. Appropriate their musical styles. Give the people want they want (2 Tim. 4:3). The result was the "megachurch." The megachurch phenomenon goes on today. Oddly, it isn't a result of more people going to church, but simply people leaving smaller churches for larger churches where they can get what they want. And while it might appear that the Church is improving her position, I would contend, instead, that she is preparing herself for double disaster.

What would make me think that? Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). In Acts 2:42-47, the first Christian church found itself "praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day" (Acts 2:47). One would think from this, then, that a large gathering of growing Christians would produce an effect in their immediate surroundings. What we find instead is a growing number of people pointing to the fact that immorality is just as prevalent in Christians as non-Christians and that the United States, a "Christian nation", has a higher crime rate than other, less "Christian" nations. This is not an improvement in the Church; it is a serious decline.

What else is in decline? One of the biggest things is worship. It is connected to the borrowing of worldly techniques. Many, many Christians have learned that "worship" is defined as "feeling good toward God". When they experience feeling warmly toward God in church, they say they worshiped. If they felt nothing, they didn't worship. Indeed, many churches have turned their sights on "felt needs". Meet the felt needs of the people that show up, and they will be inclined to be Christians. In other words, "worship" has changed from a singular focus of attention on God's worth (the definition of "worship") to self, what I need, and how I feel. God gets an admirable spot in the Church, but He is certainly not the sole or even primary attention. Paul says that worship is self dying (Rom. 12:1), but we've made self the focus of worship because self is the focus of the world and its techniques. Self-esteem, warm feelings, and so on are the goals of the world, not the Word.

I'm not a Christian prophet of doom. I don't believe the Church will cease to exist. I believe that the Church is the function of God and His work. It is aimed at building believers, not meeting their felt needs and making them feel warmly toward God. It doesn't belong to us, depend on our techniques, or hinge on our ability to make it function. But I do suspect that the Church as we know it is headed for radical losses if she doesn't learn to approach the crisis with Jehoshaphat's successful method of depending solely on God rather than Israel's failed method of depending on the world's methods.

Ruth Doesn't Get Church

In her splendidly candid post entitled I Still Don't Get Church, Ruth of Journal of Ruth has some interesting things to say. She expresses what I think a large number of Christians feel, things like "I think I have too high an expectations from the church" or "I always feel like I’m outside." One of the biggest, I think, is "They get church. For some reason, they get it and I don’t."

I think that a large number of believers feel like this. I also think that the truth is that most don't. They don't "get church". They don't feel like insiders. They don't even meet their own expectations for church.

One of the comments she made was very interesting to me:

I feel like I can be honest with my non-Christian friends, but I feel like if I really tell Christians what I really feel like, they’ll be uncomfortable.

I suspect she's quite right. I suspect that nearly all believers don't feel like they can be completely honest and up front with their church friends. After all, their church friends get it and they don't. Their church friends are godly folks and they aren't. Their church friends never speak of doubt or temptation or struggles with sin. And, perhaps, the light begins to dawn? They don't feel comfortable speaking about it ... with you, either.

The church has a lot to commend it. First, it is biblical. It was established by God for God. It is commanded. "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another" (Heb. 10:24-25). But it is also very beneficial. It promotes unity, spiritual growth, worship. It provides fellowship, a place where we can bear one another's burdens, a place to teach and be taught, to sharpen one another, to comfort one another. All well and good.

So ... what's wrong? Why is it that many think we have to revamp the Church or lose it? Why do so many feel like "I don't get it" and so few others know it? I suspect the answer is not simple. Part of it is that many, many churches have lost the notion of what church is supposed to be. A large number believe that church is intended to make converts. The Bible says it is intended to build believers. I think many churches have lost the notion of discipleship, part of the Great Commission that seems to be nearly lost today. (We aren't commanded "Go into all the world and make converts." We are commanded to make disciples ... and, oh, by the way, "teaching them all that I have commanded you.") I think there is a scarcity of churches (and, subsequently, Christians) that even know what worship is anymore.

I suspect, however, that the biggest problem is sin. Perhaps it's ignorant sin. Perhaps we aren't aware of it. Perhaps it's not intentional sin. But when we are commanded to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2) and we don't, it's sin. When we are told "confess your sins one to another" (James 5:16) and we don't, it's sin. When the singular hallmark of being a Christian -- love for the brethren (John 13:35) -- is largely missing from the church, it's sin.

I understand Ruth's feelings. I share them. I know what it's like to walk into a church and no one notices. I know what it's like to even try to work your way into the church, to be "inside", and no one notices. I know what it feels like to look at all this "spiritual people" and think, "They get it, and I don't." But these are feelings, and I suspect that the truth is that these feelings are a lie. The problem isn't that they get it. The problem is that we are sinning, refusing to love, and we are not going to talk about it. Now, can we just sing a nice little ditty about how much we love God and get on with the pleasant sermon? Please?

As I said, I don't suppose it's a simple answer. Perhaps there are things the Ruths of Christianity ought to be doing. Perhaps there are things other Christians ought to be doing. Maybe not. But there are clear things that are wrong. Perhaps we -- individuals -- need to start with "I" and work on love and spread that around a bit. We ought to work on "bear one anothers burdens" and "confess your sins" and "love one another" and see ... just see if it makes a difference. I suspect that, at least for the individual who chooses to obey God this way, it will.

Both - And

Has this ever happened to you? I'm muddling about, trying to find answers to a question. Maybe it's "What should I do about ___?" or (more likely) "What does this mean?" or other possibilities. Then, without working at it, I open my Bible to read and ... POP ... there it is.

I posted a couple days ago about the need for sanctified Christians here followed here with a post about my confusion on the question. We have this dichotomy. It appears that Scripture is abundantly clear that we are not saved by works. It seems that Scripture is abundantly clear that if there is no change in the person, they are not saved. So what am I to make of it?

Well, I've been reading through Paul's letters in sequence, and inevitably I come across this:

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth (2 Thess. 2:13).

Paul is not ambivalent here. He is not unclear. Paul affirms Election ("God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation"). And Paul makes this amazing claim ... that we are to be saved through sanctification. Oh, okay, now it's clear. Hodges is wrong; MacArthur is right. Salvation is by sanctification -- the process of becoming Christ-like. No, it's not so clear. This sanctification occurs "by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

And, of course, since I am reading through Paul's letters sequentially, I just read this:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it (1 Thess. 5:23-24).

There it is again -- sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which we cooperate with God to be made into the image of Christ. But Paul here says that God Himself will sanctify us completely. Then, in a typical Hebraism, he reiterates "He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it." In other words, He will sanctify us completely, He will sanctify us completely. You can count on it.

Again, it looks like a contradiction. It's not. It's a paradox. A contradiction is a violation of logic; a paradox is an apparent contradiction ... which may or may not be an actual contradiction. What we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin. One -- the one I've expressed here -- is God's perspective. He will do it. We are sanctified by the Spirit. He will surely do it ... completely. One side of the coin. The other side is our perspective: Work!!

It is the same two-sided perspective offered in Phil. 2.

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13).

So ... is it my job to work out my salvation, or God's? Yes. No, no, you don't understand ... Do I work? Yes. Oh, okay, so it's not God's work but mine. No. Oh, then it's God's work. Yes. So it's not my work; it's God's. No. The answer is work because God is at work in you. The answer is that we always act on what we truly believe, so if you truly believe that Jesus is Lord, you will necessarily submit to Him ... because God is at work in you. The answer is that a person who is born of God will not make a practice of sin (my work) because God's seed abides in him (God's work) (1 John 3:9).

Do we work out our salvation? Yes. We need to work as if it's all up to us. Does that save us? No!!! Then ...? We work because God is the one at work in us, enabling us to do the work and giving us the will to do the work and, ultimately, accomplishing the work in us. Since He enables both the will and the power to do it and carries it through to its conclusion, we cannot say we earned anything. We can say we worked at it.

The question is primarily one of assurance. Does our assurance come from our work or our faith? MacArthur seems to say it comes from our work. Hodges seems to say it comes from our faith. Clearly, work and faith are at work. Clearly God is at work and the believer will work. Assurance, then, comes from faith. We can know we have eternal life (assurance) if we believe. The alarm being raised about "test yourself" and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "faith, if it has no works, is dead" is this. Your assurance comes from faith. However, if there is no works, no change of the person, then there is reason to question your faith.

Zane or John - and the Bible

Scott over at Christian Telegram references an article by Dr. M. James Sawyer entitled Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation in which he compares and contrasts Zane Hodges's "Free Grace" with John MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation".

Briefly, John MacArthur (and others) advocate that a person who becomes a believer must actually submit to Jesus as Lord, while Zane Hodges (and others) counter with "No, no, no! All you need to do is believe."

It is an interesting article, but, in all honesty, it simply leaves me wondering what the truth is.

On Hodges he writes, "Hodges is responding to a caricature of a position rather than fully grasping what the Lordship position is saying, due in part to his own presuppositions. He hears the Lordship position insisting on the necessity of good works and interprets this as making works a condition of salvation." He believes that the problem occurs because of "the desire for absolute certainty that an individual possesses salvation." He thinks that Hodges fails to properly grasp or define faith, saying, "His working definition seems often to have reference to assensus and possibly notitia but without fiducia."

On MacArthur he says, "There is a hardness, an absoluteness, in the form of statements which preclude discussion." He believes that much of what MacArthur espouses is right, but he complains, "It is not a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. It is, however, being read as such, and as such it presents an unbalanced view of what the gospel is all about." I think one of the telling sentences begins "While I applaud the Lordship position in its insistence that the believer in Jesus Christ will show by his life that he is a believer, the rhetoric I hear ..."

I have to wonder if the rhetoric isn't the problem. I have to wonder if the opposition to Lordship Salvation isn't a product of misunderstood rhetoric. More accurately, I wonder if the Lordship Salvation position isn't intended to be an overstatement for effect. Sometimes, when we see a particularly egregious erroneous viewpoint, we can try to compensate by firm, deliberate, even excessive statements to the contrary. I have to wonder if MacArthur (and others) aren't responding to what they perceive to be a serious error and are, therefore, using more serious language than would ordinarily be used. Lordship Salvation, for instance, is not intended to provide a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. Dr. Sawyer is absolutely right. So is it possible that the critics are responding to something never intended?

As for me, I'm more confused than ever. I concur with Hodges (and MacArthur) on the doctrine of sola fide -- justification by faith alone (apart from works). We are not saved by works ... period. We do not contribute to our salvation. We do not earn, merit, achieve anything to do with our salvation. It is a gift, grace apart from my merit. And I agree with Sawyer that Hodges's approach lays the foundation for antinomianism. The sharp separation between justification and sanctification -- the hard-nosed battle cry that works are not part of Christianity -- flies in the face of Scripture after Scripture. But where is the balance?

On one hand we hear comforting words all around. John says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). There it is, plain as day. If you believe, you can know that you have eternal life. Paul writes, "This was according to the eternal purpose that He has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him" (Eph. 3:11-12). See? "Confidence through our faith." What more do we need? On the other hand there are resounding alarms throughout Scripture, warnings that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17) and that "anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God" (1 John 3:10). We must test ourselves to see if we're in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). We must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). We are warned -- warned -- to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

This same dichotomy is carried out in Scripture in plain sight. We don't have to dig for it; it is explicit.

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).

So how do we handle this? Is assurance certain? Do we need to work or don't we? How do we correlate "not of works" with "for good works"? MacArthur and Hodges seem to go head to head. Both seem to be right ... and wrong. Without regard for either MacArthur or Hodges, how do we make sense of the Scriptures?

Testing Testing

... one, two, three.

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you — unless indeed you fail the test? (2 Cor. 13:5).

Samantha over at Carry your Candle has linked to a sermon to a youth group by Paul Washer. I'm afraid the good preacher didn't score many points with his audience. He spoke on a taboo topic: "Test Yourself." You see, poor Paul is deluded. He thinks that simply saying a prayer to accept Jesus isn't enough to make you a Christian. He thinks that not only is there a narrow gate into heaven, but a narrow path. He actually believes that real Christians have a new nature that alters their lives, changes their way of living, and demands personal holiness. In other words, Paul Washer agrees with ... Paul the Apostle.

We are not privy to many sermons on this topic. "Test yourself." We are told that Christians can be "carnal", meaning that they may never ever display any hint of "Christianity" once they become Christians. We are told that all it takes to become a Christian is to say the Sinner's Prayer. And when folks like John MacArthur write books about the evil "Lordship Salvation" concept, there is an uproar. In a Tina Turner parody they cry, "What's works got to do with it?!?" Unfortunately, their outcry isn't against Washer or MacArthur, but against Scripture.

What do we know? We know that "each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work" (1 Cor. 3:13). We know that "the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:8-10). We know that Peter, writing to "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1), warns, "Brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (2 Peter 1:10).

Now, I'm one who believes in the "Doctrines of Grace" which means that I believe in Election. Yet Peter warns that we should each be diligent to make certain that we are among the chosen. Look at that passage and find out what Peter suggests as a test:

² Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; ³ seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. ⁴ For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. ⁵ Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; ⁶ and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; ⁷ and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. ⁸ For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. ¹⁰ Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; ¹¹ for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:2-11).

Apparently Peter suffers from the same silly delusions that John MacArthur and Paul Washer suffer from -- works are a necessary part of being a Christian. Let's look more closely at what Peter actually says here.

Peter affirms Election when he refers to "Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." He affirms the sufficiency of salvation when he says, "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." So far he's right in line with modern American Christianity. Then he deviates. He suggests that we become "partakers of the divine nature" by ... escaping the corruption that is in the world? No, no, Peter, we're just fine with all that. It's ours. We possess it. We're redeeming it. We can be in the world but not of it, and it's okay. We can watch the garbage that the world feeds us, listen to the garbage that its music plays for us, indulge in all the same sin that the world does and still be Christians. No need to "escape" ... right? No, not right. Peter says that we must add to faith. What is added? "In your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." Oh, yeah, love ... that's good. That's the end of the list. It starts with things that much of American Christianity has jettisoned: Moral excellence, knowledge, self-control. Wait ... it gets worse. "If these qualities are yours and are increasing ..." This climb from faith to love is an ever increasing spiral, building on lower level excellence to greater and greater excellence.

And here's my point ... or, rather, Peter's point: These are not trivial issues. They're not "nice to have." I'm not suggesting you feel badly and get to work on these things. Peter says that if you are not working on these things, you aren't merely being a bad Christian -- you may not be a Christian at all. Peter says that practicing such things are the means by which "the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

Christians, these aren't small matters. God is not in the business of making bad people into good people. He is in the business of making dead people into living people. Living people respond differently than dead people. So when we think we're among the living, but our lives reflect nothing of the sort, it's not a matter of self-improvement; it's a matter of being dead. The fix is not to work harder; the fix is to fall on your knees and repent, to come to Christ with nothing in your hand and beg of Him forgiveness and new life.

I suspect that a large number of folks calling themselves "Christians" in America today will have a rude awakening come Judgment Day. The authors of Scripture (and, therefore, their Inspiration) worked hard to warn us away from "casual Christianity." We have largely ignored that warning. We even get angry when people suggest that not all Christians are Christians. Well, don't take it up with me; take it up with God. These are His warnings. We dare not despise them.

Innocent Until ...

One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. When you stop to think about that, it seems an impossibility.

Recently I read a report about an Iranian student at UCLA who was tasered by the campus police when he failed to comply with an order. I don't know the source of the story or I would cite it, but for the purpose of this thought, not knowing the source is helpful. Having been given this information, it is inevitable that we will draw our conclusions. What do we know? Well, we know that the man was attacked for being a Muslim. No, no, we don't know that. He was clearly attacked for being from the Middle East. No, we don't know that either. Well, obviously it is a case of police brutality. Maybe, but the information I've offered doesn't give you that. Apparently the student was disruptive and combative and required these measures to get him to comply. No, we don't have that, either. What do we know? Well, to be honest, we don't know anything. We don't know what the problem was, why the student was asked to leave, if race or perceived religion was an issue, how much force was actually used, or who was actually at fault. However, everyone has come to their own conclusion. The cops are bad. Or the student had it coming. Someone is guilty without ever having been proved guilty.

You know you do it. I do. O. J. was guilty and we all knew it. Now, I'm relatively sure that none of my readers were on that jury, and I'm absolutely sure that none of my readers knows all the facts, but we're mostly convinced that O. J. killed his wife even though the courts acquitted him. That is, Simpson was guilty after being declared innocent.

I'm not just speaking to you here. It's me, too. It is not possible to read or hear an account of something without coming to a conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. And it doesn't really matter the source. If you dislike or distrust the source, you might come to a different conclusion than they do, but you will come to a conclusion. Someone is guilty. No proof. Just an assumption. Maybe even a good assumption, but still an assumption.

One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, yet we all come to our conclusions without the requisite proof. Is there is any hope for justice in our courts? This isn't one of those complaining pieces. I am pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" runs against our grain and yet I think that justice is often the result of our court system. This is a case of imperfect people in an imperfect premise producing a flawed but pretty impressive system of justice. Kind of makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Baby, It's Cold Outside

It's cold here ... miserable cold. I've had to start wearing long sleeves to work. The highs barely break the 70's, and the lows drop way down into the upper 40's. I don't know how anyone lives in these cold climates.

Of course, most of you are saying, "Oh shut up!" Bear with me; I'm making a point.

I live at the northern edge of the Sonoran Desert. From mid-May to mid-October we average 93 days above 100°F. This year Phoenix had 105 days at or above the 100° mark, with a peak at 118°. Beyond that, from the first of April to the first of November we have an average high over 80° each day. In this climate, it is really easy to become used to warmth. In fact, it is a necessity if you are going to live here. My wife and I actually like it. We've grown accustomed to this heat. So for us, when it drops below 80°, we're headed toward "the dead of winter" -- "miserable cold". My point? One word: acclimated.

It's very easy to get acclimated. You immerse yourself in a place or a culture or some such. Before long the novelty wears off, the oddity is no more, and you're ... acclimated. Your comfortable with your surroundings. It is this very human phenomenon that accounts for a big problem today with Christians. We are acclimated. We live in our culture, immersed. We're accustomed to the sin, so much so that we begin to consider it not only "not sin", but normal. We develop tendencies like an equivalent divorce rate with our culture, even though the Bible is undeniably anti-divorce. We begin to not only accept fornication around us, but to defend it for ourselves. A couple of weeks ago, on a Christian radio station, they had people call in and explain if it's okay to live together before getting married. I was amazed at the number of people who called themselves Christians and defended sex before marriage. "How else are you going to know if you're compatible?" Women's Lib has taken the culture, so it has seeped into the Church. Gay pride has taken the culture, so it is has seeped into the Church. We have become those of whom Isaiah warned: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20).

How did this happen? We got acclimated. We immersed ourselves in our culture. We forgot the command: "Come out from their midst and be separate" (2 Cor 6:17). We invited the world into our churches without being cautious of the sin they would bring. We stood so silent when sin crept in all around us that sin is no longer an allowable topic in some churches. Like the frog in the pot, we became comfortable in water not our own, and when the heat was slowly turned up, we were unaware that we were getting cooked.

We are called to be a light on the hill. We are to "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). We are to be salt and light to the world. Instead, we have lost our savor and hidden our lights and, instead of supplying what our world lacks, we've joined in their loss.

Of course, 70° is not cold. When you're used to 100°, that 30° difference feels cold, but it's not cold. By the same token, much of what we've come to view as "normal" is not normal or, worse, not right. Moving from the "normal", the "popular", the "currently acceptable" to the biblical will also not "feel right". It will be a change. It might feel "cold". It isn't. But move we must. It is necessary to stand for what is true, for the biblical perspective, rather than the pop-culture.

It's not popular or pleasant to stand. In Scripture you won't find much in the way of "Onward Christian Soldiers", but you will find many times that it says, "Stand firm." We are not anticipating better times. We're expecting it to get so bad they will "mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24). The people around us cannot afford to have us hanging around, knee deep in sin, lights covered. We need to recognize our acclimation and begin the difficult process of climbing out of it -- else our frog will be cooked.

My Trinity Question

As indicated way back in this post, even though the question was settled some 1600 years ago, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity continues to surface and face argument. It is not uncommon to hear people say, "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible" or "The Trinity is an antichrist doctrine cooked up in the church of Rome." They'll tell you it is tritheism, borrowed from pagan beliefs, an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not dealing with the facts.

There is one question (at least one) that I have never had answered from the anti-Trinitarians. Most don't even try. It comes from one of the clearest expressions of the Deity of Christ as well as His "difference" with God -- John 1.

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1-3).

First, the easy stuff. What can we see without doing any real work?

We can see that "the Word" is an enigma. This "Word" is both God and with God. This Word, then, has both the same nature as God and yet a distinction from God.

We can see that this Word is the Creator. This is really problematic to those who claim that Jesus was a created being, because John goes out of his way to say this as categorically as he can. "All things were made through Him." No, that's not sufficient. Let's see it another way. "Without Him was not any thing made." Yeah, that says it again in reverse. But wait ... there's more. One might think that "any thing" refers to "any thing but him, of course." But John is equally clear as to what "any thing" refers: "Any thing that was made." Well, let's see ... what was made? That would be all Creation. That would exclude God. Anything but God was "made." So if "the Word" made everything that was made (which would include everything except God), then "the Word" cannot be a created being, else He would have made Himself -- an absolute impossibility.

So the "sticky" question ... who is "the Word"? Well, John doesn't leave us in the dark about that, either.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

That leaves little room for guessing. "The Word" is "the only Son from the Father," who, as John goes on to explain, is Jesus.

Putting it together, we have Jesus (prior to becoming flesh) who is both the same nature as God and yet distinct from God who is also the Creator of all that exists. (If you still trip over "But ... God exists", perhaps it's a good time to review.) This seems to be an insurmountable question to me. To the modalist -- those who hold that God has operated in different modes, starting as YHWH and now as Jesus (including the "Jesus Only" crowd) -- you have a problem. John presents a distinction between God and the Word. To the Arians -- those who hold that Jesus was a created being -- and the Socinians -- those who teach that Jesus was a deified man -- you have a problem. John presents Him as the Creator of all things that were created. How did He make Himself? To the monophysite -- those that hold that Jesus only had one nature ... a divine one -- you have a problem. John clearly states that He became flesh. To the tritheist -- those who hold that there are three distinct gods (Yes, there are those who actually argue that.) -- you have a problem. John clearly says that Jesus was God -- a unity.

Now, admittedly this passage does not address the third person of the Trinity, but I have yet to have a valid answer from an anti-Trinitarian that explains this passage. The worst, the ones that don't even try, are the ones that claim that Jesus was a created being. How is it even remotely possible that this created being created Himself?

So the next time you hear "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible," keep in mind this passage and try to figure out for yourself how it is possible that such a claim could stand on its own for long.

Marriage at its End?

Is marriage on its way out?

I was initially sparked to ask this question when Arizona defeated the Protect Marriage Act. But one begins to wonder if it can be protected. Arizona's defeat of this proposition (even though it was on the basis of what the proposition said about unmarried couples rather than what it said about homosexual marriage) has hit the news media as a victory for homosexual marriage. It's still illegal here in Arizona, but many news outlets have assured us that the gay and lesbian community see this as a win. And as the media continues to pour out a steady fare of "There's certainly nothing unusual or noticeable about homosexuality" on its entertainment screens, public opinion is swayed.

Of course, the homosexual community is only one aspect of the marriage question. The heterosexual community is adding its own contributions. The New York Times announced, "To Be Married Is To Be Outnumbered", citing census information that says that there are fewer people living as married couples than those who are not. Many couples are in "alternative living arrangements". They're ... shacking up. With the prevalence of this kind of arrangement, one has to ask, "Why marry?" Children from divorced homes tend to be less likely to marry and more likely to "shack up". ("Live together" sounds so nice; I don't want to portray it as such.) Most of society believes that shacking up isn't only acceptable ... it's advisable. I mean, how can you know what a person is really like if you haven't lived with them? Two facts -- the fact that shacking up is not the same as marriage and, therefore, not a valid test and the fact that couples that live together before marriage tend to have higher divorce rates -- don't seem to have any sway in this popular wisdom. So couples are shacking up, forming "domestic partnerships" in which they buy houses, engage in sex, have children ... do most everything that married couples do without the commitment. Why marry?

Divorce is a major problem in America today. Many states have "no-fault" divorce. That means that there does not have to be a genuine reason for terminating a marriage. If he says, "I don't want to be married anymore" and she says, "I do", it's considered "irreconcilable differences" and the marriage is terminated. Despite all the difficulties that divorce brings and despite the studies that have repeatedly said that divorce causes more problems than it solves, divorce rates continue to rise.

Christians aren't helping matters. Statistically, people who identify themselves as Christians are just as likely to shack up and just as likely to divorce as anyone else. One would think this wouldn't be the case, since Christianity is clearly against both, but those who call themselves followers of Christ are blatantly ignoring His views on the subjects of sex outside of marriage and divorce in growing numbers.

Marriage is in trouble in America. Who knows if it can be saved? Should it be saved? The biblical answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Marriage has a variety of positive values. First and foremost, it is ordained and blessed by God. That alone should be sufficient. But there are other values -- practical ones. People who marry and stay married tend to live longer than those who don't. Marriage -- a father and mother indefinitely committed to each other and the family -- provides the healthiest environment for raising children. Marriage tends to "domesticate" men. Now, guys might say, "How is that a positive value?" By "domesticate" I mean it tends to rub off the wild tendencies -- you know, the ones that cause all the problems. Married men -- men committed to their wives and their families -- tend toward less crime, less violence, less problems in society. Instead, they tend toward better selves, better contributors to society, better involvement in their neighborhoods and the lives of others. If, for instance, a man is married -- truly married with no thought of escape -- the instances of adultery plummet. It becomes an untenable option. Children in homes where their parents are married tend to be better adjusted -- better people. They tend to propagate this improvement as well. One other benefit of marriage is a Christian one, again. Marriage is God's image of His Son's relationship with His people. The Church is "the Bride of Christ". It carries a variety of images from caring to unity, from protection to intimacy. It is an image created by God to bring more sharply into focus the relationship of His Son to His people. Tarnishing that image is an affront to God.

Marriage is worth saving. Will America step up and do it? There's no way to tell right now. Will Christians step up and do it? Even that is hard to say. So it falls on us, as individuals, to protect it in our homes and our lives. The troubles marriage faces in our society is no excuse for us. While we wonder, "Exactly how 'Christian' is a 'Christian' who disdains the obvious commands of God?" we still need to proceed with doing what we know to be right, being lights in the darkness, so that they may see our good marriages and glorify God.

Unpardonable Sin

The "unpardonable sin" ... what is it? Growing up, I was taught, "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior. It is the only unforgivable sin." Unbelief ... that was it. It's a comfortable position. It makes God seem "broad-minded" and grace seem large. But when I read the text in which we find the reference to the unpardonable sin, it doesn't seem to fit, and, worse, when I begin to analyze it, I run into serious problems.

First, the text:

²²A demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. ²³ All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" ²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons" (Matt. 12:22-24)

Jesus was causing a stir among the people. The Pharisees had to shut it down. So they accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This gives rise to a famous saying that Jesus gives in response:

²⁵And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? ²⁷ If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:25-28).

"A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln used it to explain why we had to fight against the South seceding from the Union. And Jesus, in the context of the accusation of the Pharisees and His assurance that their accusation is impossible, speaks of a sin that cannot be forgiven here or in the afterlife:

"²⁹Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. ³⁰ He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. ³¹ Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. ³² Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:29-32).

There you have it. Other translations use the term "blasphemy." The NASB here uses the term "speaks against," which is the general meaning of "blasphemy." Jesus here appears to caution the Pharisees. He appears to say, "Be careful, guys ... you are really close to putting yourself in a category without hope. You've spoken against Me, and that can be forgiven, but you are right on the edge of speaking against the Holy Spirit, and that is unforgiveable." There appears, from the context, to be an unbreakable link between the accusation of the Pharisees and the sin we call "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

It doesn't seem that the context supports the idea that "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior." Instead, it appears to be that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more like attributing to Satan the actions of the Holy Spirit. I can't see how "not accepting Jesus as Savior" fits anything in the context of the statement.

Beyond that, it becomes problematic when you analyze it. If the unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior, everyone is guilty of that sin at some point. Everyone has a time frame in which they did not (read "refused to") accept Jesus as Savior. (Oh, how I hate that phrase. But let's move on.) No one is innocent of refusing Jesus as Savior at some time in their life. So it would seem that if this was an accurate representation of the unpardonable sin, then it must require more clarification. The standard addendum is "for life" -- "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior ... for life." In other words, no one can commit this sin until they die. Now, trying to fit that into the context of Jesus's warning to the Pharisees gets even more difficult. If that was what He intended to say, it is extremely obscure. "You Pharisees be careful! Don't die with that attitude of rejecting Me." Further, if the sin is dying without having received Christ, then the fix is ... self-help. "Do it yourself." I avoid committing the unpardonable sin by receiving Christ. The problem here is that if the only thing that can keep me from Heaven is that one thing, and I accomplish (or rather avoid) that one thing, how have I not earned Heaven?

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. Context doesn't seem to support it. Reason doesn't seem to support it. I like the idea, to be sure, but I cannot bring myself to agree with it. From my perspective, it makes God quite narrow-minded, and grace becomes totally dependent on my choice ... nullifying grace. I can only conclude that the unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- assigning to Satan the acts performed by the Holy Spirit. Anything else just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Work ... the Curse?

I was listening to my local Christian radio station at a time I would not normally be listening to my local Christian radio station (I typically listen for an hour driving home from work and no other time.) when I heard the speaker tell me that work is a curse. Works is a curse????

As proof, we were offered this tidbit from God's curse of Adam and Eve in the Garden:

"Cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (Gen. 3:17).

Well, there you have it, plain as day. "Toil" is part the curse. Work is a curse.

I find that notion completely bizarre. There is more than one reason. First, didn't God give Adam work to do before he sinned? Let's see ... oh yes:

The LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it (Gen. 2:15).

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19).

So, Adam was given a one-time task of naming all the animals (Imagine the magnitude of that task.) and an ongoing job of cultivating and maintaining the Garden. Adam had work to do.

Second, it seems that Man is built for work. The story is told of a Nazi prison camp in which the Jewish prisoners were dying from nothing to do (among everything else they were enduring). The commandant decided to give them something to do, so he ordered them to move a large pile of sand that was on the compound. When they started into the task, the guards noticed a dramatic change in the prisoners. Poorly fed, poorly treated, and in miserable physical condition, they still displayed a sense of confidence and pride. Their morale improved. They had meaning. When the task was done, the commandant decided to prolong the work by having them move the pile back to its original position. Interestingly, when the prisoners discovered that their task had no meaning, their attitudes reverted to the depression they had before.

Man is built for work. Everyone needs a sense of meaning, of accomplishment, of significance. Males in particular are wired for this. The most common cause of the "mid-life crisis" is when a person gets past the middle point of his (or her) life and thinks that they haven't accomplished what they hoped. Accomplishment, meaning, significance ... these are essential to the well-being of the human being.

Based on the fact that Adam had a job to do before sin, and based on the intrinsic need of human beings to do work, I have to disagree with the teacher on the radio. I have no doubt that it is a popular perception. I have no doubt that many Christians think that work is part of the Curse. But that's not the case, nor is it what God said to Adam.

What did God say to Adam? He didn't say that work was the curse. He said that hard work was the curse. He said that the ground was cursed because of sin. That meant that the work, which originally would have been easy, will now become difficult. God, in essence, sentenced us to hard labor. Labor is not part of the Curse; just hard labor. Work itself is a gift from God, designed by God to meet the needs of His creation. If we disdain that gift and call it a curse, we miss out on the blessings that God intended when He originally designed us.

Ted's Eatery

Meet Ted. Ted is the proud owner and operator of a small little take-out place. Ted is running his business fairly, not overcharging customers and not underpaying workers (according to the law). After all the cost of running his business is done, Ted takes home $40,000 a year.

Ted has four employees. Two are minimum wage earners, working 40 hours a week for $5.15 an hour. Ernie, his cook, has been with Ted for a year, so Ernie is making $6.15 an hour at 40 hours a week. Bill has been with Ted for a couple of years. He is the night shift supervisor, so he makes $7.15 an hour at 40 hours a week. In total, Ted is currently paying $49,088 a year in wages for his workers.

Enter the minimum wage hike. When Congress raises the minimum wage to the projected $7.25 an hour, Ted will comply. The two minimum wage workers will get a $2.10 an hour raise. Of course, Ernie could get a $1.10 an hour raise to bring him up to minimum wage, but that hardly seems fair to put him at the same level as the entry-level workers. And it is less fair for his long time employee and shift manager to make the same as the entry-level workers, even though he would see a $.10 an hour raise. So Ted does the fair thing and shifts everyone by $2.10 an hour. Now Ted is paying $66,560 a year in wages for his workers.

Ted has a tough decision now. He can take the loss himself, requiring him to live off of $22,528 a year, or he can find some other way to equalize the business. If he lets one of his entry-level workers go, he would gain $15,080 a year and only drop to $37,608 a year. Of course, that would leave him short handed. He could avoid making the wage hikes for Ernie and Bob, but they wouldn't stick around long at that rate, and he'd be short handed and out of the experienced workers he had. So Ted has another option. He can hand off the cost to his customers. Dividing it over hundreds of customers shouldn't be too bad, so he boosts his prices to compensate for the $17,472 he has lost in income.

Funny thing. While not everyone is making the same decision, many are. Of course, those with more employees make bigger changes because those with more employees are having more dramatic effects on their businesses. Ted is not hiring that new employee he was hoping for. Others are laying off some of theirs. A lot are adjusting their prices to compensate. And, as it turns out, the cost of living ... everywhere ... goes up. As it happens, when Ted's wage requirements match California's wage requirements, the cost of living matches California's cost of living.

Well, of course, now those minimum wage workers are having trouble making ends meet ... again. They boost in pay was nice, but everything costs more now, so it doesn't feel like much of a pay boost. And the losses of entry level jobs is having a drag on the employment market. It was nice for a short time, but now $7.25 is a sub-poverty wage. Why doesn't someone do something about it? Shouldn't the government raise the minimum wage? Surely anyone who works for 40 hours a week deserves not to live in poverty ...

Maybe it will happen this way, and maybe it won't. But those who argue that the minimum wage needs to be increased, I think, are not taking into account all the factors, including the fact that it hasn't made those workers in other states with higher minimum wages any better off where they live than those with lower minimum wages. Yes, yes, I know ... economists are not in agreement about how this all works itself out. Yes, yes, I know ... my scenario is overly simplified. I'm not really trying to prove a point here. All I'm asking is this: Are we really thinking this through ... for everyone?

Thanks

It's Thanksgiving Day. What a unique opportunity! Most countries don't have a day set aside to give thanks. And even though many Americans don't know to Whom they're giving thanks, we still have Thanksgiving Day.

According to Paul, a lack of gratitude is one of Man's main problems. In his explanation of the decline of Man in sin from Rom. 1, he says early on, "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom. 1:21).

A lack of gratitude, spawned from a refusal to honor God, produces ... insanity. It produces futile speculations and foolish, dark hearts. The result is a continuing decline in Romans 1 until we find that people "know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" and yet "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Rom. 1:32).

Climbing out of the natural condition of "ungrateful" isn't easy. It takes time and effort. We need to work at "thanks." Today is a day to do that.

I'm grateful for so much, and I should be grateful for so much more.

I'm grateful for Christ, His sacrifice on my behalf, and His offer of salvation. I'm grateful for a wife who loves me, for children, for family. I'm grateful for employment and all that that provides. I'm grateful for a house to live in, food to eat, clothes to wear. I'm grateful for running water. (Are you aware that a majority of Earth's population does not have indoor plumbing?) I'm grateful for reliable transportation, for friends, for health. I'm grateful for the painful lessons God has taught me and the comfort He provided afterward. I'm grateful for His promises on my behalf. I'm grateful for answered and unanswered prayer. Where would I be if God did everything I asked Him to do? I'm grateful for the things He has given me and the things He has taken from me. I'm grateful for the plans He has for me. I'm grateful mostly that "me" is not His primary view.

The list goes on and on. It is woefully short. If I am honest, I have to admit that I am too often among the ungrateful. So I'm grateful to live in a country that recognizes a day, at least, to remind us to give thanks.

(As a postscript, I also need to shout out a "Happy Birthday" to my youngest son. On rare occasions his birthday aligns with Thanksgiving Day. On the other hand, I rarely forget to be thankful for him.)

Can We Talk?

Have you ever noticed that there are some things that we can't talk about?

I recently read a piece on why it is that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and Christians should back off and let it be because it's normal and biblical -- so there. Now, if I were to respond to this line of thinking, there is only one possible conclusion -- I'm a homophobe. I could explain the biblical perspective. I could tell why the Bible is against homosexual behavior. I could respond to the piece point by point. And I could even state with all clarity that God doesn't hate homosexuals and neither do I. Love the sinner; hate the sin. You know. But it doesn't matter. I would be branded a right wing anti-gay. The only way to avoid this kind of slander is to agree with the piece.

I recently read a piece on why it is that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches and anyone who disagrees is a throwback to the Dark Ages. If I were to respond to this line of thinking, I'd be shot down from two directions. First, I'm a male. Males are not allowed to comment on things about females if they are perceived to be "keeping the woman down". If my position from Scripture is not that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches, I would be a male chauvinist, a power-mad fool trying to keep women in their place and prevent them from being all that God intended. Second, I'd be a "traditionalist", a throwback, too narrow-minded and too steeped in history and tradition to see the truth. Even in a discussion of the merits of the arguments and the reasons why Scripture appears to contradict the idea that women should be allowed to be head pastors, I'd be branded "backward". Clearly I am placing on Scripture my own twisted perspective, as every enlightened person (male and female) can tell. How do you know who is enlightened? Well, you're clearly enlightened if you agree with the idea that women should be allowed to be head pastors of churches.

I float these two, without merit of discussion, points of Scripture, or real explanation of the ideas on either side, as illustrations of things that we can't talk about. To do so would be narrow-minded, bigoted, sexist, and so on and so forth. The merits of the arguments are not up for discussion. Why the Bible might disagree is not an allowable course of conversation. And heaven help the ones who disagree with the current "new views". You're simply being disagreeable. You don't like "seeker-sensitive services"? Clearly you're not progressive enough. You think that churches should have a biblical government? You're obviously not keeping up with the times. And that limited idea that the Bible is the Word of God ... come on ... where are you from? No, no, we won't be discussing the merits of any of those ideas. They disagree with the majority; therefore, they have no merits and there is nothing to discuss. If you do decide to discuss it, you're just being argumentative and mean-spirited. And you call yourself a Christian? Troublemaker! We're just not going to talk about it. You're too judgmental and intolerant.

Or take this example. There is a young lady where I work with whom I have occasional conversations. She lives with her boyfriend whom she followed from her home of origin back on the east coast. Now, me, being the curious type ... I simply want to ask "Why?" I don't mean it as judgmental. I'm just curious what would make someone choose to live together, especially with that amount of conviction, and not marry. But try asking that question without sounding like some outraged parent-type or offended moralist. Try asking that without sounding like, "What in the world were you possibly thinking???!!!" I don't know. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's that I would possibly be thinking that very question. Maybe it's because in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "What would make you do such a foolish thing?" But I wouldn't mean it that way. I just want to know ... you know, like a survey question. It's not like the answer impacts me in any significant way. A data point, that's all. But I will likely never ask that question because it cannot be asked without sounding jugmental and intolerant. One thing I cannot tolerate is intolerant people.

Maybe not. Maybe we can't talk. But I suppose I'll keep trying.

Why Do I Do It?

Scripture is replete with pleas and commands for unity. Time and again we see the Bible asking us to "be of the same mind." Instead, we see division. There are thousands of denominations and probably an exponentially larger number of theological viewpoints. Some have complained that this kind of ongoing discussion and division simply tarnishes Christianity to the world. Still, undaunted, we continue to set forth what we believe to be the truth and explain why opposing views are not.

Why do we do it? I suspect that the answers to that is as varied as our theology. Some want to be right. Some want to argue. Some want to defend the truth. And lots of other reasons. I wouldn't be so grandiose as to try to answer that question for anyone else, but I feel I need to answer it for myself, else I would need to stop.

Why do I continue to defend the truth? If it was simply because I want to be right, I'd have given up long ago. I've seen too many times where I am defending my position only to be overwhelmed with the irrefutable logic of the opposing position. I've had to admit that I was wrong and change my view. If "being right" was my aim, I'd be a dismal failure. No, it's not about that. Nor is it because I like to argue. I don't. I tend to be a "peace at all costs" kind of person. So why do I do it?

The answer isn't a simple one. I have multiple reasons. I do it because we are commanded to "contend for the faith" (Jude 1:3). I don't always enjoy it, but I am commanded to do it, so I do. We are commanded to "be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2). We are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). As much as some would like to silence the dialog, it appears to be a command from God, so I do it.

I do it because it is the history of the Church. Almost every single doctrine of Christianity is born out of controversy. Starting with Paul's letters to the churches, reaching throughout the New Testament writings, and continuing through all of Church History, nearly every major doctrine was marked out because of the counterfeits that showed up on the scene. Indeed, the New Testament has multiple warnings that false teachers will appear, and it was right. So, as if God intended this mechanism, godly people have arisen each time to make a defense for the truth. Paul shot down gnosticism (Colossians), legalism (Galatians), experientialism (Corinthians), and more. John addressed antinomianism (1 John) and other topics. The author of Hebrews defended the deity of Christ against some "created being" concept. The Council of Nicea explained the Trinity against the heretics. Luther and Calvin took on the established church at the time to push it back toward biblical doctrine. And on and on. It is the history of the Church. I do it because it is biblically and historically required.

I do it because I want to be right. I mean this different than earlier. I want to be right, even if I am not currently. I want to think correctly. I want to alter my views as need be to bring my ideas into line with the truth. None of us are 100% correct. I don't do it because I think I am. But if I never submit my ideas to the "marketplace", so to speak, then I can never have my thinking corrected. And I want to be transformed by the renewing of my mind. So where I think wrong (i.e., I know that I do), I want to correct it.

Finally, I do it because I think it is important. I think that there is absolute truth. I think that truth matters. I think that faulty thinking leads to faulty living. For those who are mistaken where I am correct, I hope to point to the truth for them to correct their thinking. The truth, you see, isn't mine. It's the truth. If I can point an erring brother or sister to the truth, I have done them a service. And for those who are correct where I am mistaken, I want to see the truth. This only happens when dialog occurs. So I examine viewpoints contrary to my own. I look at ideas not my own. I test my thoughts against Scripture and evident reason. All because I think that the truth is real and that it matters.

Why do I do it? Why do I maintain this dialog? I do it because we are commanded to do it. I do it because historically it has been the way the Church has operated. I do it because I want to correct my own thinking. I do it because ultimately I believe truth is important. I can't answer for anyone else, but I think these are sufficient reasons to continue the conversation.

Disproving Election

Proof that the concept of "the elect" is a lie!

⁸ Do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8-9).

There you have it, in plain black and white. It is God's will to save all. How can anyone think that God chooses to save some? Is "all" all or not?

I've been fascinated by this matter-of-fact approach to this passage, as if it's "clear as day." So very, very few seem to recognize the problems. There are a couple of difficulties here. First, we have the problem of a Sovereign God who wills to save all ... but cannot, for some reason or another. It cannot be that He will not because we've already determined that it's His will to save all. So it must be something preventing Him. This, in fact, is a skeptic's dream. Either God is unable or unwilling to save everyone. Apparently He is willing, so He is unable. Therefore, God is not sovereign or not omnipotent. So the nature of God is in question.

Second, there is the problem of the language. Note that the passage doesn't say that God is "not willing for anyone to perish." It is a blank "any". There is no explanatory term after the "any". Now, we can assume that the "all" is in terms of the "any" -- that is, "all" of the "any" are part of God's will to come to repentance. But people are randomly filling in the descriptive to "any" without any examination of what should go there. Here, let me see if I can explain. In the absence of a definitive term, people are filling in "one" or "men" or some such. But why can't I make it "cats" or "pigs" or "trees"? God is "not willing for any dogs to perish" is just as possible as anything else, isn't it?

Well, of course this isn't the case. The "any" is determined by the context. You can't just fill in whatever you want for "any"; you have to do it from the context. I'm not allowed to fill in "dogs" because it's not in the context. So what is the context? Peter is saying that God "is patient toward you." "You" is the context. Who is "you"? It is the ones to whom this is written. It is the "beloved" of verse 8, the "beloved" of 2 Peter 3:1. And who is the "beloved" of 2 Peter 3:1? "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you ..." It would be the same people to whom 1 Peter was written. Who is that? "To those who are elect." Now we can go back to the "any" and fill in a descriptive term to explain it. Just as we couldn't insert "dogs", we must not insert "one". We can only insert what the context requires. So it would say that God is "not willing for any of you (the elect, the beloved) to perish but for all (of that same set of people) to come to repentance."

Now, those who are in denial of the doctrine of Election will still stand there shaking their heads and saying, "No!" So, if context doesn't help, is there any other reason to think this is the case? As it turns out, there is. As it is with any passage in question, it is good to look at the language used, so let's look at the language used here. The first word in question is "any". The Greek word used here is tis. The dictionary says this word means, "a certain one, some one". Now, that's interesting, isn't it? Apparently it isn't intended as much of a catch-all, but as a separator. So the word here would say, "God is not willing that certain ones perish." That's very much like "any of you" versus "anyone at all." The second word in question is "all". The Greek word here is pas. Strong's says it means "collectively, some of all types." Oh, my, that's too close to one of the popular Calvinist interpretations in which "all" means "some from all types of people." Let's see if we can avoid that. Strong goes on to illustrate ways in which the term is used without meaning "each and every one."

"the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile

It seems as if this "all" may not mean "each and every individual" after all. It does, however, fit into the "all of the elect" reading.

What is the ramification of this passage if this be so? Going back to the first problem -- the question of the nature of God -- we are able to reinsert a sovereign, omnipotent God. It is His will, then, that each and every one of His elect come to repentance, and being the sovereign, omnipotent God that He is, they will. This verse, instead of weakening God's character and giving a blanket "wish" that all be saved, provides instead assurance to "the beloved" that every single one whom God intends to save will indeed be saved. That is what we are waiting for ... which is the intent of the passage in the first place. The Lord is not slow about His promise; He is waiting until every single person He intends to save is indeed saved. Instead of disproving Election, then, it seems as if this passage defends Election and Eternal Security. Now, that's not a bad thing.

Fear God?

In his horrible diatribe against the condition of natural man, Paul concludes with this accusation: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:18). Lest you think that this is a commentary on Paul's time, he borrows it from Scripture. David writes, "Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes" (Psa. 36:1). Instead of an isolated description, it appears to be a common problem of Man.

What is this "fear"? We often try to mitigate it. Many translations like to use "reverence" instead of "fear". We aren't supposed to fear God, are we? No, of course not. And yet, it seems as if the universal response of human beings who experience the true presence of God is ... abject fear.

Jacob had a dream of angels descending and ascending into heaven. He awoke and his immediate response was to be afraid. "'Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.' And he was afraid and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven'" (Gen. 28:16-17). Isaiah was a prophet of God. In Isaiah 6 he describes his encounter with God in a vision. His response was, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa. 6:5).

These aren't just "Old Testament" responses. When Jesus told the fishermen, "Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch" (Luke 5:4), Peter recognized Deity. He didn't suggest a deal; he begged for distance. "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" (Luke 5:8). And when the seasoned fishermen experienced a storm on the Sea of Galilee, they were frightened, but when the Son of God silenced the storm with a command, "they became very much afraid" (Mark 4:41).

It appears that the normal response of humans to God is fear. Not "reverence" -- fear. Paul capitalizes on this when he says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). That can't be rewritten to "reverence". It is fear. In Greek, it is phobos (from which we get our concept of "phobia") and in Hebrew, pachad. In both languages it is a sense of dread, alarm ... fear. Yet, to even suggest that people should actually, literally fear God draws fire from Christians.

The primary source of this objection is found in 1 John:

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love (1 John 4:18).

There it is. We have no need to fear God. But is that what it says? Well, I suppose it could be, if we don't mind reinterpretting the "fear" concept found throughout Scripture. Or could it be that this is not what it says?

Look at the context. John writes, "God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16). It would appear from this statement that "perfect love" is only arrived at when we abide perfectly in Him. It seems to me, then, that this isn't saying, "Don't fear God." Instead, it seems to be saying that when we arrive at perfect love for God we will have no need to fear consequences. Until we arrive at that point, we have this promise: Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives" (Heb. 12:6).

We live in a time that epitomizes Paul's accusation. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Unfortunately, Christians are eager to include themselves in this accusation. "We don't need to fear God; we need to reverence Him." And we fall into the very same category that Paul bemoans as the evil state of Man. Are we really sure we want to stand on this ground?

Correlate the "alls"

As a quick recap, so far we've defined "atonement" as all the necessary components -- expiation and propitiation -- that provide reconciliation. That is, atonement means that one is "at one" with God. I also explained why it cannot be that all sins are covered under this term "atonement". So we need to address the "all" passages that seem to say that the atonement was unlimited.

What was paid for at the Cross? This is the key question. We find many passages that are "all" passages. Now, it's important that this be done carefully. Some of the "all" passages, properly understood, have a limit to the "all" in mind. This isn't contradictory. The term "all" is always limited to the set in question. "All of my family" would limit this "all" to "my family". "All of you" would limit this "all" to the set that is being addressed -- "you". In Heb. 10:10, for instance, we read, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." There it is. He offered His body "for all". However, verse 14 of the same chapter limits this "all". "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). So the "all" in mind here isn't "each and every person", but all of "those who are sanctified." We need to be aware, then, that sometimes "all" doesn't mean "each and every human being". We need to be aware of the "all" being referenced.

Another thing to be aware of is emphasis. What is the point? Is the "all" the point, or is there something else? A prime example would be a number of passages that include the phrase we see above: "once for all." The point here is not the "all", but the "once". A prime example of this is Heb. 7:26-27 -- "For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." The point is not the scope of the sacrifice, but the singularity of it. This "all" isn't necessarily any more than "all that it covers" because the view is not "each and every person" but "once".

All well and good, but there are still more passages that state or imply "all" that aren't managed by their content.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men (Rom. 5:18).

Two verses in particular are most often trotted out to prove without any doubt that "Limited Atonement" cannot be:

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

There are certainly more, and we should list them as well:

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:5-6).

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).

We do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).

And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).

Now, let's take a look at this problem.

We've already seen that "Unlimited Atonement" is an oxymoron. If "atonement" means "at one with God", "Unlimited Atonement" means "everyone is at one with God". It necessitates Universalism. On the other hand, we have these passages that seem to speak of "unlimited atonement". What do we do with this? First, we do not delete them. Although some might be tempted to highlight them with that special black highlight pen, that's not the answer. The answer is careful analysis.

Some of these, as I said, don't fit the mold. They may look at first blush like universalist passages, but simple context fixes that problem. Some aren't so easily dismissed. Look at 1 John 2:2. Some are tempted to say, "It's about the elect", but John goes out of his way to shoot them down. "Not for ours only (the elect), but also for those of the whole world." However, if we think this through, John is either saying that all sins for all people for all time are "propitiated" and, therefore, all people are saved, or he has something else in mind despite the best efforts of the anti-Limited Atonement folks. So what is John saying? He is clearly speaking of "the whole world", but what he says here is not about what is accomplished, but about Christ. Here, let's shorten it to make it clear: "He Himself is the propitiation." Does that help? Think of the old West with the one-room schoolhouse and the single teacher. She was "the town teacher". That didn't mean that she taught everyone. It meant that if anyone was going to be taught, they had to go to her. John is saying that if any sin is going to be propitiated, it is going to happen through Christ alone. No one has any other means by which to gain the favor of God. Christ is the propitiation not of our sins only, but of the sins of the whole world. Nothing in the statement suggests that all sins are atoned for.

I would suggest that several of the favorite "all" passages fall in that category. Jesus is "the Savior of the world", which is to say He is the only available Savior the world has. He "takes away the sins of the world", which is to say that all sins in all the world that are taken away are taken away by Him. So we have this other category of "all" passages that indeed mean "all" but do not mean that atonement has actually occurred.

Still, what about that pesky 2 Peter passage? This one refers to "false prophets" and places their purchase ("the Master who bought them") in the past tense. This seems like we're up against it here. Might as well give up. Universalism, here we come. But wait ... maybe there is an alternative.

Satan is sometimes described in Scripture in terms of authority. He is called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2) and "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). He is obviously limited in his reign, but he has, nonetheless, God-given rights. He has the rights to the world. When Jesus was in the wilderness, he offered Him all the kingdoms of the world. But after Christ died and rose again, He said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). What happened?

A couple of the terms that Scripture uses to describe our salvation are along the lines of "redemption". They are "purchase" terms. They refer to "buying back". Could it be that Christ "bought the world"? Now, understand, purchasing the debt doesn't mean that the debt is paid. Imagine a mortgage on a house. It is very common for a mortgage company to buy a mortgage from another company. The homeowner doesn't suddenly find that his debt is paid. He simply owes a different creditor. Could it be that when Christ paid the price on the cross, He purchased all the mortgages? It sounds somewhat similar to the parable of the treasure in the field. Remember? The man sold all he had to buy the field because there was a treasure in it. He wanted the treasure; he bought the field.

This would make sense of 2 Peter 2:1. When it says that He was "the Master who bought them", it doesn't mean that their debt was paid, but that their debt was purchased. Indeed, in this sense Christ "taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9). This would largely expand the idea of what Christ accomplished on the cross. It would more fully explain the sufficiency of the sacrifice while keeping it distinct from the efficacy of the sacrifice. It would agree more fully with some of the "all" concepts without lapsing into Universalism. It actually maintains "Limited Atonement" while agreeing with a universal effect of the cross.

Maybe you don't like it. It makes utmost sense to me. But you let me know if you can come up with a different satisfying way to correlate the "all" passages with the certainty of judgment and Hell. Remember ... no fair redefining "atonement" for you anti-Limited Atonement folks or "all" for you pro-Limited Atonement folks. And no fair simply deleting the ones you don't like. I find this a satisfying correlation. What about you?