The theology of inherited sin nature is dominant in all forms of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Outside of radical Arminianism, I know of no major group that rejects sin nature. Instead, opponents of inherited sin nature can be found scattered among a variety of theological traditions. This creates a major problem: sin nature is taught as dogma in nearly all churches and dissenting arguments are rarely heard. I have often heard it said that sin nature is an essential doctrine; that you can't understand salvation unless you accept sin nature, but I've never heard an explanation for why this is the case other than, "some theologian said so". If this doctrine is so essential, we should be sure that it is in fact Biblical.
The typical view of inherited sin nature is that every person has some basic sort of evil at the core of their being; sin is simply part of being human. Others view sin nature as a strong compulsion to sin. Either way, sin nature is an inevitable and inseparable part of mankind. Why is this a considered an essential doctrine? It has nothing to do with the gospel, repentance, faith, or the new birth. Actually, it would present the ultimate excuse for guilty sinners. Therefore, I argue that inherited sin nature is a dangerous doctrine. In short, if sin is some inescapable part of my nature, then it's not really my fault if I sin, right? In reality, the guilty sinner doesn't need to repent of Adam's sin (besides, how could they?), they need to repent of their own specific willful sins. The idea of sin nature distracts from this.
There is another theological problem with inherited sin nature that is even worse. If sin nature existed, it would certainly play a major role in how humans are tempted. Yet, Jesus was "In all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). If we have a sin nature, this passage wouldn't be true unless Jesus did also. But to claim that Jesus had a sin nature is a MAJOR theological problem. If you believe in inherited sin nature, you have to reconcile this issue. I've yet to hear anyone from the sin nature side even attempt to tackle this problem.
I've shown some huge theological contradictions with sin nature, but I also want to examine the Bible passages that supposedly support it before I propose an alternate viewpoint. Psalm 51:5 is commonly cited, but examine what David actually says: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." How was he shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin? Did his mother commit adultery? Was he referring to other sin surrounding his conception? Or was he poetically referring to the world he was being conceived into? (this is a poem after all) It's hard to be 100% sure, but there's certainly nothing here about inheriting the sin of his mother, his father, Adam, or anyone else.
Psalm 58:3 is also commonly quoted in support of inherited sin nature. It's obvious that this passage is just poetic, because infants in the womb are quite incapable of telling lies. It's also claimed that Romans 5:12 teaches that Adam's sin spread to all men. Look again. It says death is what spread to all men, not sin. In fact, it says death spread to all men because all have sinned (Men die for their own sin, not Adam's). Finally, Romans 7:25 only teaches sin nature if you're cherry picking a very bad translation (NIV, NLT) to support your position.
After dealing with those few verses, the argument for sin nature completely breaks down. Sin nature proponents resort to citing verses that state things to the effect of "all have sinned". Yup, I agree. However, this argument is not about if everyone sins, but rather how that sin got there. Is it the result of their own bad choices, or were they born with it? So, the hundreds of verses that discuss the sinfulness of humanity are not relevant to the argument for inherited sin nature. But if we don't have a sin nature, how do we explain these verses? Are we all just neutral? I think not. For example, Paul talks about being a slave to sin in his unsaved state (Rom. 7). This is far from neutral, but how did he get that way?
At this point, I want to present an alternate view. Up to this point I've been using the term "inherited sin nature", because now I'm going to introduce a viewpoint that could be called "acquired sin nature". The concept is hardly worth such a title though. It's very simple: sin is addictive. As we sin throughout our lives and the addiction builds, it quickly starts to look like what some might call a "sin nature". The addiction to sin produces a greater and greater proclivity to sin.
So if humans still have a proclivity to sin, what's the difference? If you inherited a sin nature from Adam, you couldn't help it. Any sin you would commit is, at least partially, not your fault. But your proclivity to sin came about through your own actions, you can't blame anyone but yourself. Imagine a meth addict who has been strung out for a year. Their compulsion to do meth is so strong that it's nearly impossible for them to stop. They might argue they barely have control over their actions, that they are a slave to their addiction. Yet, they still hold 100% of the blame, because they made the choices that led to their addiction.
Similarly, fornicators find it hard to give up their lifestyle. Homosexuals convince themselves that their sin is just part of who they are. Ever notice that sin is a downward spiral? It's the addiction at work. Fornicators need more partners and wilder acts. Liars tell bigger and bolder lies. Criminals rarely keep doing the same thing, they have to graduate to more serious crimes to keep getting the rush. This is what sin does: it blinds us, hardens our heart, and pushes us farther away from God.
Thankfully, this addiction is broken when you repent, trust Christ, and are born again. That's the difference between the saved and the lost. While Christians might fall into sin at times, even back into the same ones as before, there is no addiction. The downward spiral is replaced with new desires and an upward climb. I hope you've experienced that freedom from sin. If not, repent now!
In conclusion, I've shown that there is no Biblical support for the idea of inherited sin nature. I've also pointed out several major theological contradictions that would occur if sin nature were true. In light of these facts, the case against inherited sin nature is a slam dunk. I've also explained that the Biblical statements showing our proclivity to sin are easily understood when we consider the addictive nature of sin. This viewpoint leaves no unresolved theological issues, and gives guilty sinners no excuse for their behavior.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
The Conservative's Betrayal of Christianity and the Case for Libertarianism
It finally happened, I'm interested enough in politics to write on the topic. Well, sort of. I'm not going to discuss a bunch of specific policy positions or candidates, but instead would like to examine the Christian theological basis for political thought. Even though there's an expected cultural identity for Christians to be a part of the 'religious right', I'm going to argue that this is a betrayal of core Christian values, and that libertarianism is the political philosophy that fits best with Christianity.
So, I begin with a fundamentally important assertion: all law is backed by violence. If you don't believe me, go pick a law and break it. Even if it's a minor offense punished by a fine, you will eventually encounter force if you refuse to pay. So let's be really clear about this. When you make a law about something, you're saying "I think we should use violence to enforce this".
Now, although the Bible doesn't really say anything about the particulars of government (no, the US is not Israel), it sure does set some rules when it comes to violence. In fact, peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. To commit an act of violence against a non-aggressor is decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Our m.o. should be "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men." (Rom. 12:18).
There are plenty of behaviors that justify a forceful response. Murderers should be stopped and punished. Drunk drivers should be forcibly removed from the road to keep the public safe. What about moral issues? Christians generally do a good job at asking the most basic question, "Is this behavior right?", but when it comes to politics there's a second question that rarely gets asked, "Should we use violence to enforce/discourage this behavior?"
Let me emphasize that this is not an issue of moral relativism. I do believe in absolute truth and morality, but I also recognize that it's not Biblical to try to force someone into Christian behavior. How do we see Jesus and the apostles respond to immorality in the culture? They preach the gospel, sharply rebuke sin, and call people to repentance. Jesus spent a lot of time calling out religious hypocrisy, rebuking those who were only outwardly religious, but dirty on the inside (Matt. 23:25-28). So why should we use the government to force others into hypocrisy? Jesus tells us instead to clean the inside first (v.26).
We can also learn from history to see the disaster that comes when governments try to regulate morality. I won't even discuss the Catholic church because that's too easy. Even after the reformation, many of the reformers went on to establish their own state churches which bred corruption and often persecuted anabaptist Christians. This even carried over into the early American colonies and states, where taxes were used to fund the state church and refusal to attend church was a punishable offense. Calvin's Geneva is possibly the best example of this corruption. Personal morality was heavily regulated by the state, but in practice, the people of Geneva remained corrupt and only added hypocrisy to their sins. T.H. Dyer quotes Gallife, a Genevese writer, who gave the following account:
To those who imagine Calvin did nothing but good, I could produce our registers, covered with records of illegitimate children, which were exposed in all parts of the town and country; hideous trials for obscenity...I could instance multitudes of forced marriages, in which the delinquents were conducted from the prison to the church; mothers who abandoned their children to the hospital, whilst they themselves lived in abundance with a second husband; bundles of lawsuits between brothers; heaps of secret negotiations; men and women burned for witchcraft; sentences of death, in frightful numbers; and all these things among the generation nourished by the mystic manna of Calvin. (The Life of Calvin, p.153)
These accounts of the personal morality at Geneva are not uncommon. I wouldn't argue that the government caused this immorality, but it certainly did little to nothing to stop it, despite the strict intervention. If Geneva was the greatest example of a society attempting to legislate morality, it was an abysmal failure. The conclusion is obvious: you can not use government to force people into moral behavior, they must be changed from the inside out.
Let's use the gay rights issue as a recent example. Now, I don't believe in gay marriage, because marriage is first and foremost a Christian religious institution, which is defined by the Bible, not governments. With that said, should we deny homosexuals the equal protection of their civil liberties? Yes, homosexuality is sin, but since when is it our responsibility to stop others from sinning through the use of force? Do you really think that making their lives harder will stop them from sinning? Also, do we really want the government to have the ability to forcibly invade our lives for almost any reason? If you want our government to have that kind of power, what are you going to do in ten years when someone is elected who thinks that Christians are undesirables?
I also want to touch on the issue of war, which is another area where libertarians take a different position than typical conservatives. I don't want to get into a complete theology of war, but we should all be able to agree that aggressive war is completely anti-Christian and that every effort should be made to prevent civilian casualties if we do find ourselves in a war. Do we not believe in the sanctity of life? Then how can a Christian vote for a politician who is recklessly aggressive overseas? Or one who is willing to kill civilians through carpet bombing? Our overseas aggression has been justified as a 'war on terror', but I think we all need to be reminded that it has been almost 15 years since the US has been attacked and we're now mostly fighting in countries that had nothing to do it. How does this mesh with Christian principles?
So other than politics, what does this matter? First, if we're going to give account for every idle word, I think it's obvious that our voting record will be a part of that. I've given sufficient reasons to not vote republican, and there are even more reasons to not vote democrat. Some refuse to vote third party because they 'have no chance of winning', but do you really want to have to explain to the Lord why you supported someone who promoted violence? I'd rather use my vote as a message, and give it to the right person with a clean conscience. Second, I've seen several instances where the policies of the 'religious right' hinder the spread of the gospel. Ever try to share the gospel with a gay person? When I do, I usually have to spend the first few minutes breaking down walls that they have put up against Christians...sometimes it doesn't work. If they were offended by the gospel or our stance for righteousness, that would be fine, but many are offended by government interference in their lives.
In conclusion, typical conservative policies stand in contrast to Biblical principles. Libertarianism stands as the best alternative. Christians must abandon their undeserved loyalty to the republican party. We should be the first to stand against any policy of unnecessary violence, both domestic and foreign. Our efforts should be focused on converting sinners through preaching the gospel, not moderating their behavior through politics. Finally, we should conduct ourselves in a way that honors the Savior regardless of whether we can affect political change or not.
So, I begin with a fundamentally important assertion: all law is backed by violence. If you don't believe me, go pick a law and break it. Even if it's a minor offense punished by a fine, you will eventually encounter force if you refuse to pay. So let's be really clear about this. When you make a law about something, you're saying "I think we should use violence to enforce this".
Now, although the Bible doesn't really say anything about the particulars of government (no, the US is not Israel), it sure does set some rules when it comes to violence. In fact, peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. To commit an act of violence against a non-aggressor is decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Our m.o. should be "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men." (Rom. 12:18).
There are plenty of behaviors that justify a forceful response. Murderers should be stopped and punished. Drunk drivers should be forcibly removed from the road to keep the public safe. What about moral issues? Christians generally do a good job at asking the most basic question, "Is this behavior right?", but when it comes to politics there's a second question that rarely gets asked, "Should we use violence to enforce/discourage this behavior?"
Let me emphasize that this is not an issue of moral relativism. I do believe in absolute truth and morality, but I also recognize that it's not Biblical to try to force someone into Christian behavior. How do we see Jesus and the apostles respond to immorality in the culture? They preach the gospel, sharply rebuke sin, and call people to repentance. Jesus spent a lot of time calling out religious hypocrisy, rebuking those who were only outwardly religious, but dirty on the inside (Matt. 23:25-28). So why should we use the government to force others into hypocrisy? Jesus tells us instead to clean the inside first (v.26).
We can also learn from history to see the disaster that comes when governments try to regulate morality. I won't even discuss the Catholic church because that's too easy. Even after the reformation, many of the reformers went on to establish their own state churches which bred corruption and often persecuted anabaptist Christians. This even carried over into the early American colonies and states, where taxes were used to fund the state church and refusal to attend church was a punishable offense. Calvin's Geneva is possibly the best example of this corruption. Personal morality was heavily regulated by the state, but in practice, the people of Geneva remained corrupt and only added hypocrisy to their sins. T.H. Dyer quotes Gallife, a Genevese writer, who gave the following account:
To those who imagine Calvin did nothing but good, I could produce our registers, covered with records of illegitimate children, which were exposed in all parts of the town and country; hideous trials for obscenity...I could instance multitudes of forced marriages, in which the delinquents were conducted from the prison to the church; mothers who abandoned their children to the hospital, whilst they themselves lived in abundance with a second husband; bundles of lawsuits between brothers; heaps of secret negotiations; men and women burned for witchcraft; sentences of death, in frightful numbers; and all these things among the generation nourished by the mystic manna of Calvin. (The Life of Calvin, p.153)
These accounts of the personal morality at Geneva are not uncommon. I wouldn't argue that the government caused this immorality, but it certainly did little to nothing to stop it, despite the strict intervention. If Geneva was the greatest example of a society attempting to legislate morality, it was an abysmal failure. The conclusion is obvious: you can not use government to force people into moral behavior, they must be changed from the inside out.
Let's use the gay rights issue as a recent example. Now, I don't believe in gay marriage, because marriage is first and foremost a Christian religious institution, which is defined by the Bible, not governments. With that said, should we deny homosexuals the equal protection of their civil liberties? Yes, homosexuality is sin, but since when is it our responsibility to stop others from sinning through the use of force? Do you really think that making their lives harder will stop them from sinning? Also, do we really want the government to have the ability to forcibly invade our lives for almost any reason? If you want our government to have that kind of power, what are you going to do in ten years when someone is elected who thinks that Christians are undesirables?
I also want to touch on the issue of war, which is another area where libertarians take a different position than typical conservatives. I don't want to get into a complete theology of war, but we should all be able to agree that aggressive war is completely anti-Christian and that every effort should be made to prevent civilian casualties if we do find ourselves in a war. Do we not believe in the sanctity of life? Then how can a Christian vote for a politician who is recklessly aggressive overseas? Or one who is willing to kill civilians through carpet bombing? Our overseas aggression has been justified as a 'war on terror', but I think we all need to be reminded that it has been almost 15 years since the US has been attacked and we're now mostly fighting in countries that had nothing to do it. How does this mesh with Christian principles?
So other than politics, what does this matter? First, if we're going to give account for every idle word, I think it's obvious that our voting record will be a part of that. I've given sufficient reasons to not vote republican, and there are even more reasons to not vote democrat. Some refuse to vote third party because they 'have no chance of winning', but do you really want to have to explain to the Lord why you supported someone who promoted violence? I'd rather use my vote as a message, and give it to the right person with a clean conscience. Second, I've seen several instances where the policies of the 'religious right' hinder the spread of the gospel. Ever try to share the gospel with a gay person? When I do, I usually have to spend the first few minutes breaking down walls that they have put up against Christians...sometimes it doesn't work. If they were offended by the gospel or our stance for righteousness, that would be fine, but many are offended by government interference in their lives.
In conclusion, typical conservative policies stand in contrast to Biblical principles. Libertarianism stands as the best alternative. Christians must abandon their undeserved loyalty to the republican party. We should be the first to stand against any policy of unnecessary violence, both domestic and foreign. Our efforts should be focused on converting sinners through preaching the gospel, not moderating their behavior through politics. Finally, we should conduct ourselves in a way that honors the Savior regardless of whether we can affect political change or not.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
A Biblical Survey of Worship and Praise
Over the years, I occasionally had this haunting feeling hit me during a worship service that what we're doing is fabricated, arbitrary, and even artificial. In my journey away from traditional church, the problem sort of solved itself. But recently, the issue popped in my mind again as a pressing question that wouldn't go away, "What is proper worship?". I think most people have the same qualitative idea of what worship means, "to assign value to something". But Biblically, how is this done? I mean, what do you actually do physically and mentally? To answer this question, I did a survey of a praise and worship and I'd like to share some of my results here.
The Bible never really gives us a textbook description of worship, but there's a lot that we can piece together. To start off, the vast majority of the time you see "worship" in the Bible, it's translated from a word that means "to bow down, fall down, stoop, give obeisance". If not the act of bowing down, it is primarily done while bowed. This is specifically described several places in the Bible (Josh. 5:14, Rev. 4:10). If you look at all the places in the Bible where the word 'worship' occurs, it primarily carries this idea of bowing down, with the idea of service coming in a distant second (Luke 4:8). It's worth pointing out that service is also a way of humbling yourself before a higher authority. Therefore, humility seems to be the common theme where worship is used in the Bible. In short, worship is all about you humbling yourself before God, acknowledging your unworthiness, and bowing before God's supreme holiness, power, and beauty.
Therefore, worship is not a loud raucous noise. It is quiet submission in the heart. There's a strong precedent for physically bowing down during worship, but the primary issue is humbling of the heart. Also, I note that while it is not explicitly stated, Biblical worship seems to be primarily private. Although you hear many churches focusing on "corporate worship", that concept is not found in Scripture. Yes, there was public worship in the temple, but people weren't really worshiping together, more like worshiping by themselves, but in a public place. Think of it like praying at church...it could be said that you're praying together, but in reality each person is doing their own praying while occupying a shared space.
So let's settle on a final answer of the original question, "what is worship?". First and foremost, worship is internal. It starts with you placing yourself in a low, humble position, afraid to even imagine looking on the face of God, being conscious of your sinfulness, and recognizing that we are unworthy to even be in his presence. Outwardly, worship is typically done while bowing or serving. Worship is reflective and reverent. There is a place in the Christian life for jubilance, but worship is not one of them; it is a solemn activity.
What about the modern concept of a church worship service? To begin with, I can't find a single instance of worship being associated with music in the Bible. Also, it's clear that the Biblical concept of worship as a humbling of oneself is incompatible with the jumping, dancing, and loud music of typical worship services. I'm not sure that corporate worship is possible even in a solemn service, because worship is an internal thing, and therefore inherently private. But can't we worship in our own way as long as our heart is right? Nope. Colossians 2 speaks ill of this kind of worship, which is according to the doctrines of men and not God. It is called "will-worship"(Col. 2:23), arbitrary worship devised by yourself or others rather than the one to be worshiped.
Can I make one other observation? I've often written about the greatest problem in Christianity: a false gospel that replaces repentance with a sinner's prayer. I can't help but notice that the humility that is required for true worship goes hand in hand with repentance. It makes sense then we see worship and the gospel being corrupted simultaneously.
So are churches wrong to have a 30 minute worship service every Sunday? Well, I think we need to first acknowledge that this is praise, not worship. I would also note that there's no specific commandment for churches to praise together, but certainly for individuals. However, since church is a gathering of individuals, this may still have some application. Especially since praise is public by nature, unlike worship. Also, in the Bible praise is not just singing, but also takes the form of spoken words. There's also the command to teach one another through song (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Putting all of this together, I think it's fair to say that praise should happen in church meetings. There is no clear Biblical precedent for when or how often, but I have to question the wisdom of spending 40-60% of the church's time together on praise at every single meeting. I just don't see that kind of emphasis in Scripture. That time would be more appropriate for things like doctrine, admonition, fellowship, and prayer.
In conclusion, it's important to understand that praise and worship are two very different things. Otherwise, we risk completely neglecting the spiritual discipline of worship, which has the benefit of renewing humility and repentance in our lives. Worship is a specific activity that involves reverence and humility. It has no link whatsoever to music, which would almost certainly be a distraction. It is my observation that true worship is commonly misunderstood, and therefore not practiced intentionally. Let us renew our understanding of worship and practice it as we should.
The Bible never really gives us a textbook description of worship, but there's a lot that we can piece together. To start off, the vast majority of the time you see "worship" in the Bible, it's translated from a word that means "to bow down, fall down, stoop, give obeisance". If not the act of bowing down, it is primarily done while bowed. This is specifically described several places in the Bible (Josh. 5:14, Rev. 4:10). If you look at all the places in the Bible where the word 'worship' occurs, it primarily carries this idea of bowing down, with the idea of service coming in a distant second (Luke 4:8). It's worth pointing out that service is also a way of humbling yourself before a higher authority. Therefore, humility seems to be the common theme where worship is used in the Bible. In short, worship is all about you humbling yourself before God, acknowledging your unworthiness, and bowing before God's supreme holiness, power, and beauty.
Therefore, worship is not a loud raucous noise. It is quiet submission in the heart. There's a strong precedent for physically bowing down during worship, but the primary issue is humbling of the heart. Also, I note that while it is not explicitly stated, Biblical worship seems to be primarily private. Although you hear many churches focusing on "corporate worship", that concept is not found in Scripture. Yes, there was public worship in the temple, but people weren't really worshiping together, more like worshiping by themselves, but in a public place. Think of it like praying at church...it could be said that you're praying together, but in reality each person is doing their own praying while occupying a shared space.
So let's settle on a final answer of the original question, "what is worship?". First and foremost, worship is internal. It starts with you placing yourself in a low, humble position, afraid to even imagine looking on the face of God, being conscious of your sinfulness, and recognizing that we are unworthy to even be in his presence. Outwardly, worship is typically done while bowing or serving. Worship is reflective and reverent. There is a place in the Christian life for jubilance, but worship is not one of them; it is a solemn activity.
What about the modern concept of a church worship service? To begin with, I can't find a single instance of worship being associated with music in the Bible. Also, it's clear that the Biblical concept of worship as a humbling of oneself is incompatible with the jumping, dancing, and loud music of typical worship services. I'm not sure that corporate worship is possible even in a solemn service, because worship is an internal thing, and therefore inherently private. But can't we worship in our own way as long as our heart is right? Nope. Colossians 2 speaks ill of this kind of worship, which is according to the doctrines of men and not God. It is called "will-worship"(Col. 2:23), arbitrary worship devised by yourself or others rather than the one to be worshiped.
Can I make one other observation? I've often written about the greatest problem in Christianity: a false gospel that replaces repentance with a sinner's prayer. I can't help but notice that the humility that is required for true worship goes hand in hand with repentance. It makes sense then we see worship and the gospel being corrupted simultaneously.
So are churches wrong to have a 30 minute worship service every Sunday? Well, I think we need to first acknowledge that this is praise, not worship. I would also note that there's no specific commandment for churches to praise together, but certainly for individuals. However, since church is a gathering of individuals, this may still have some application. Especially since praise is public by nature, unlike worship. Also, in the Bible praise is not just singing, but also takes the form of spoken words. There's also the command to teach one another through song (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Putting all of this together, I think it's fair to say that praise should happen in church meetings. There is no clear Biblical precedent for when or how often, but I have to question the wisdom of spending 40-60% of the church's time together on praise at every single meeting. I just don't see that kind of emphasis in Scripture. That time would be more appropriate for things like doctrine, admonition, fellowship, and prayer.
In conclusion, it's important to understand that praise and worship are two very different things. Otherwise, we risk completely neglecting the spiritual discipline of worship, which has the benefit of renewing humility and repentance in our lives. Worship is a specific activity that involves reverence and humility. It has no link whatsoever to music, which would almost certainly be a distraction. It is my observation that true worship is commonly misunderstood, and therefore not practiced intentionally. Let us renew our understanding of worship and practice it as we should.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The Impossibility of Apostasy
Recently, I was passed a tract from a local Amish group called "The Possibility of Apostasy". This is in part a response to that tract, but also a general criticism of the doctrine that a person can lose their salvation. I confess that I have a soft spot for those who hold to this doctrine. While there are some that are committed to this heresy, I have found that there are many who are simply overreacting against the abuses in mainstream Christianity. They correctly reject the ideas of carnal Christianity (that a child of God can live in unrepentant sin) and the sinner's prayer (that a person has to merely ask for forgiveness or recite a prayer to be saved). They know that the Bible teaches that it's impossible for a Christian to live a life of unrepentant sin. Therefore, they conclude that these 'carnal Christians' must have lost their salvation. However, I would like to make the case that it is impossible to lose your salvation, and that all cases of 'carnal Christianity' can be explained by recognizing that they were never saved to begin with.
I want to start by clarifying the nature of salvation and what one must do to be saved. First, the gospel message is that God came to Earth as a man and that this man Jesus died for the sins of the world, taking upon Himself the judgment that we deserve (1 Cor. 15:1-4). On this basis, God can now justify man (Rom. 3:25-26). God offers forgiveness to mankind, but commands that we must repent and trust/believe in Him (Mark 1:15). This is stated throughout the Bible, and nowhere is salvation promised to one who merely asks or says a ritual prayer. There is nothing wrong with praying and asking God for forgiveness, but unless accompanied by repentance, the words are empty.
With all this in mind, I hope it becomes clear that in the case of "Christians" who walk the aisle in their church, pray a sinner's prayer, and then live like the devil, we should not feel pressured to explain their descent back into sin. These people didn't even do what was necessary for them to be saved. They went through a silly superficial ritual that is unfortunately promoted by most of so-called Christianity. So, you see, it's not even possible for these people to have lost their salvation, because they never possessed it to begin with. In my experience, 95% of 'carnal Christians' that I meet show obvious signs that they never understood salvation. For those 5% that did at least appear to show some outward signs of repentance, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there was something going on in their heart that we couldn't see (perhaps a particular sin they weren't willing to part from). We see this clearly in 1 John 2:19, where John states that those who are truly converted would doubtlessly continue in the faith, and those who depart only reveal that they were never truly a part of the church. This easily explains what we see without invoking strange doctrines.
Now I want to explain why I call 'eternal insecurity' a strange doctrine that is incompatible with the Bible. Scriputure is clear that neither our salvation nor our continued spiritual growth is dependent on our works. As Paul puts it in Galations 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" It's also helpful to examine the promises that God makes regarding salvation. For example: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn. 10:27-28), "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Heb. 13:5), "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So when you're saved, you have eternal life. By definition, eternal life can't be cut short. It's impossible to claim that someone can lose their salvation without also calling Jesus a liar in the above passages. Let me demonstrate my point again in a sort of syllogism using John 3:16 as an example:
Everyone who has been born again believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ.
Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish and will have eternal life.
Therefore, everyone who has been born again will not perish and will have eternal life.
So again, it's clear that every person who has been truly saved has God's unconditional promise that they will not perish in Hell. How could God make such a promise if it is possible for us to lose our salvation?
Additionally, this doctrine seems to make a small thing of the process of salvation. When a man is born again, he is made into a new creature to serve God (2 Cor. 5:17). He passes from death unto life (Jn. 5:24). He is no longer a child of the devil, but becomes a child of God (1 Jn 3:10). Do you suppose that men just bounce back and forth between being an old or new creaure, being alive or dead, and being a child of the devil or child of God? Furthermore, how can this doctrine mesh with the doctrine of chastening as laid out in Heb. 12? Do you believe that God's chastening is insufficient? Is God a failure of a father to those supposed formerly saved sons out there?
Finally, I'd like to take a litle time to address passages commonly considered to be in support of 'eternal insecurity'. In general, most can be understood when you consider that the people being referred to are typically those who have been associated with the church and counted among the number, but were never truly saved to begin with. Hebrews 6 is one passage that I'd like to discuss directly. Verses 4-6 are often quoted in support of 'eternal insecurity', though they are simply an aside about unconverted Jews. What they often neglect to mention is that if they are right about this passage, v.6 makes it clear that if you lose your salvation, it's impossible for you to be saved again.
How do they claim you can lose your salvation? According to the tract I got saw from the local Amish, you can lose you salvation if you neglect to forgive someone, if you aren't bearing enough fruit, if you're sinning, if you refuse to take a stand for Christ, and if you refuse to separate from the world. They even suggest that whether or not you own a TV might be the clearest test of your conversion. So how much sin is "too much"? How much of a stand do you have to take? How much fruit must you bear? James 2:10 says "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Sounds like one sin is too much, and would be grounds for you to lose your salvation, forever. Are you absolutely sure you were a perfect person yesterday? Have you always loved God with all of your heart and mind without fail? What about tomorrow? How certain can you be that tomorrow you won't blow it and condemn yourself to an eternity in Hell? People who believe in this doctrine should lose sleep every night.
Thankfully, that's all nonsense. If Jesus' blood is sufficient to wash away every sin in your past, then a single sin (or many) after your salvation is not going to break the deal. Of course, that's not a license to sin and everyone who has truly been saved wouldn't see it as such. Because, as shown before, salvation is a dramatic change that creates a new person who wants to please and serve God.
I don't know about you, but I'm still an imperfect creature. I lose my temper sometimes. I'm not as patient as I should be. I get frustrated with my wife and kids. I sometimes sit at home when I could be handing out tracts. I could go on. I'm just thankful that God is patient with me and continues to love, chasten, and teach me as I continue to follow Him.
In conclusion, I hope it is clear now that it's impossible for a Christian to lose their salvation. Carnal Christians are not Christians who have lost their salvation, but are simply people who made a superficial profession of faith, often the sinner's prayer, without ever being truly converted. 'Eternal insecurity' is a doctrine without Biblical support that turns salvation into a bargain that we have to keep instead of a merciful offer to those who repent. If you believe in this doctrine, reject it now. To the rest of you, I hope this has been helpful for your own edification, or as something to challenge someone you know.
I want to start by clarifying the nature of salvation and what one must do to be saved. First, the gospel message is that God came to Earth as a man and that this man Jesus died for the sins of the world, taking upon Himself the judgment that we deserve (1 Cor. 15:1-4). On this basis, God can now justify man (Rom. 3:25-26). God offers forgiveness to mankind, but commands that we must repent and trust/believe in Him (Mark 1:15). This is stated throughout the Bible, and nowhere is salvation promised to one who merely asks or says a ritual prayer. There is nothing wrong with praying and asking God for forgiveness, but unless accompanied by repentance, the words are empty.
With all this in mind, I hope it becomes clear that in the case of "Christians" who walk the aisle in their church, pray a sinner's prayer, and then live like the devil, we should not feel pressured to explain their descent back into sin. These people didn't even do what was necessary for them to be saved. They went through a silly superficial ritual that is unfortunately promoted by most of so-called Christianity. So, you see, it's not even possible for these people to have lost their salvation, because they never possessed it to begin with. In my experience, 95% of 'carnal Christians' that I meet show obvious signs that they never understood salvation. For those 5% that did at least appear to show some outward signs of repentance, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there was something going on in their heart that we couldn't see (perhaps a particular sin they weren't willing to part from). We see this clearly in 1 John 2:19, where John states that those who are truly converted would doubtlessly continue in the faith, and those who depart only reveal that they were never truly a part of the church. This easily explains what we see without invoking strange doctrines.
Now I want to explain why I call 'eternal insecurity' a strange doctrine that is incompatible with the Bible. Scriputure is clear that neither our salvation nor our continued spiritual growth is dependent on our works. As Paul puts it in Galations 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" It's also helpful to examine the promises that God makes regarding salvation. For example: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn. 10:27-28), "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Heb. 13:5), "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So when you're saved, you have eternal life. By definition, eternal life can't be cut short. It's impossible to claim that someone can lose their salvation without also calling Jesus a liar in the above passages. Let me demonstrate my point again in a sort of syllogism using John 3:16 as an example:
Everyone who has been born again believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ.
Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish and will have eternal life.
Therefore, everyone who has been born again will not perish and will have eternal life.
So again, it's clear that every person who has been truly saved has God's unconditional promise that they will not perish in Hell. How could God make such a promise if it is possible for us to lose our salvation?
Additionally, this doctrine seems to make a small thing of the process of salvation. When a man is born again, he is made into a new creature to serve God (2 Cor. 5:17). He passes from death unto life (Jn. 5:24). He is no longer a child of the devil, but becomes a child of God (1 Jn 3:10). Do you suppose that men just bounce back and forth between being an old or new creaure, being alive or dead, and being a child of the devil or child of God? Furthermore, how can this doctrine mesh with the doctrine of chastening as laid out in Heb. 12? Do you believe that God's chastening is insufficient? Is God a failure of a father to those supposed formerly saved sons out there?
Finally, I'd like to take a litle time to address passages commonly considered to be in support of 'eternal insecurity'. In general, most can be understood when you consider that the people being referred to are typically those who have been associated with the church and counted among the number, but were never truly saved to begin with. Hebrews 6 is one passage that I'd like to discuss directly. Verses 4-6 are often quoted in support of 'eternal insecurity', though they are simply an aside about unconverted Jews. What they often neglect to mention is that if they are right about this passage, v.6 makes it clear that if you lose your salvation, it's impossible for you to be saved again.
How do they claim you can lose your salvation? According to the tract I got saw from the local Amish, you can lose you salvation if you neglect to forgive someone, if you aren't bearing enough fruit, if you're sinning, if you refuse to take a stand for Christ, and if you refuse to separate from the world. They even suggest that whether or not you own a TV might be the clearest test of your conversion. So how much sin is "too much"? How much of a stand do you have to take? How much fruit must you bear? James 2:10 says "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Sounds like one sin is too much, and would be grounds for you to lose your salvation, forever. Are you absolutely sure you were a perfect person yesterday? Have you always loved God with all of your heart and mind without fail? What about tomorrow? How certain can you be that tomorrow you won't blow it and condemn yourself to an eternity in Hell? People who believe in this doctrine should lose sleep every night.
Thankfully, that's all nonsense. If Jesus' blood is sufficient to wash away every sin in your past, then a single sin (or many) after your salvation is not going to break the deal. Of course, that's not a license to sin and everyone who has truly been saved wouldn't see it as such. Because, as shown before, salvation is a dramatic change that creates a new person who wants to please and serve God.
I don't know about you, but I'm still an imperfect creature. I lose my temper sometimes. I'm not as patient as I should be. I get frustrated with my wife and kids. I sometimes sit at home when I could be handing out tracts. I could go on. I'm just thankful that God is patient with me and continues to love, chasten, and teach me as I continue to follow Him.
In conclusion, I hope it is clear now that it's impossible for a Christian to lose their salvation. Carnal Christians are not Christians who have lost their salvation, but are simply people who made a superficial profession of faith, often the sinner's prayer, without ever being truly converted. 'Eternal insecurity' is a doctrine without Biblical support that turns salvation into a bargain that we have to keep instead of a merciful offer to those who repent. If you believe in this doctrine, reject it now. To the rest of you, I hope this has been helpful for your own edification, or as something to challenge someone you know.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Atheism's Hypocritical View of Design
Although atheism is generally considered an intellectual position, I'm convinced that the requirement for atheism is not intelligence, but intentional blindness to some obvious truths. This is clearly seen in some of the most outspoken atheists, who actively and publicly ridicule Christianity and the idea that there is a God who created the universe. These same atheists, if pressed on the matter, come up with some very peculiar ideas about how things came to be. It becomes clear that they are willing to believe almost anything, as long as it leaves God out of the picture.
I'll start off with a recent example. A few weeks ago I was working with the TV on in the background tuned to the science channel. It caught my attention when an astronomy program came on and started talking about Kepler-78b, a prominent example of a class of planets that baffles astronomers. The problem is that Kepler-78b is too close to its parent star...there's simply no way it should be there. Every model of planet/star formation would suggest that when you extrapolate back to when the planet supposedly formed, it would have been inside the star – an impossibility. Also, Kepler-78b has a fairly stable orbit, so it's not possible that it formed elsewhere and fell into its current position.
Yet, Kepler 78-b is an observed fact. So what was the top suggestion for how it can exist? Aliens put it there. Yup. Not making this up. According to the program, “This sounds far-fetched, but is based on sound science”. Actually, I agree with their logic. Given all the facts it makes the most sense to conclude that the planet was put there by some design. But if it's OK for some scientists to attribute its design to aliens, why would Christians get ridiculed for attributing its design to God? The program certainly didn't mention God as a possibility, and I guarantee that if I had been there to pitch the idea, I'd have been laughed out of the room. This is hypocrisy. They use the same logical steps to make the same types of arguments, but you only get your own TV show if you say “aliens did it”. If you say “God did it”, you get ridiculed.
If you think this is just some random guys on TV, you'd be wrong. Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous modern atheist and critic of Christianity, holds a similar view. Near the end of the movie 'Expelled', Ben Stein interviews Dawkins and asks him a handful of questions related to God and intelligent design. Dawkins actually admits that he would be OK with intelligent design if you think about it in terms of aliens designing life on Earth. Again, why is it OK to attribute design to aliens, but mock those who attribute design to God? Hypocrite.
Francis Crick is another atheist worth mentioning. He's best known for being a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. He also openly mocked Christianity. However, his research on DNA put him face-to-face with the overwhelming impossibility of evolution. Crick refused to acknowledge God as creator, and predictably turned to alien life as his savior. He came to the belief that life was so complex that it must have been put there by aliens. He still mocked God. Hypocrite.
Perhaps the most widespread hypocrisy is in the area of biomimicry – copying or drawing heavy inspiration from designs of biological systems to solve problems in engineering. It should be self-evident that it's only useful to copy a design if it was made by someone smarter than you – nobody cheats off the class clown. But biology is interpreted through the lens of evolution, which supposes that all life arose from undirected processes. This philosophy would not lead you to expect beautiful, complex, elegant designs in nature, but merely something cobbled together by random mutation and natural selection. This is certainly not what we find. Even the most “simple” cell is a factory of nanomachines so advanced that it will probably be at least 100 years before we could even begin to duplicate it. Biomimicry only makes sense if you assume an extremely intelligent creator. But hey, if atheists want to think that they're dumber than random processes, who am I to argue?
All of this only supports my previous assertion that commitment to atheism requires the ability to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Any study of the natural world reveals obvious design. Hypocritically, atheists are willing to attribute this design to aliens or other forces while mocking God and marginalizing Christians. If you're an atheist, take off the blinders and look around. Use your God-given brain. It doesn't take much to realize the existence of the Creator, and it's only a few logical steps from there to listen to your conscience, realize your sin, understand God's justice, and know your need for a Savior. To my fellow Christians: don't be intimidated by the pseudo-intellectualism, but be bold in proclaiming the gospel. Help the lost to see their hypocrisy and foolishness, and show them their need to repent and follow Christ.
I'll start off with a recent example. A few weeks ago I was working with the TV on in the background tuned to the science channel. It caught my attention when an astronomy program came on and started talking about Kepler-78b, a prominent example of a class of planets that baffles astronomers. The problem is that Kepler-78b is too close to its parent star...there's simply no way it should be there. Every model of planet/star formation would suggest that when you extrapolate back to when the planet supposedly formed, it would have been inside the star – an impossibility. Also, Kepler-78b has a fairly stable orbit, so it's not possible that it formed elsewhere and fell into its current position.
Yet, Kepler 78-b is an observed fact. So what was the top suggestion for how it can exist? Aliens put it there. Yup. Not making this up. According to the program, “This sounds far-fetched, but is based on sound science”. Actually, I agree with their logic. Given all the facts it makes the most sense to conclude that the planet was put there by some design. But if it's OK for some scientists to attribute its design to aliens, why would Christians get ridiculed for attributing its design to God? The program certainly didn't mention God as a possibility, and I guarantee that if I had been there to pitch the idea, I'd have been laughed out of the room. This is hypocrisy. They use the same logical steps to make the same types of arguments, but you only get your own TV show if you say “aliens did it”. If you say “God did it”, you get ridiculed.
If you think this is just some random guys on TV, you'd be wrong. Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous modern atheist and critic of Christianity, holds a similar view. Near the end of the movie 'Expelled', Ben Stein interviews Dawkins and asks him a handful of questions related to God and intelligent design. Dawkins actually admits that he would be OK with intelligent design if you think about it in terms of aliens designing life on Earth. Again, why is it OK to attribute design to aliens, but mock those who attribute design to God? Hypocrite.
Francis Crick is another atheist worth mentioning. He's best known for being a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. He also openly mocked Christianity. However, his research on DNA put him face-to-face with the overwhelming impossibility of evolution. Crick refused to acknowledge God as creator, and predictably turned to alien life as his savior. He came to the belief that life was so complex that it must have been put there by aliens. He still mocked God. Hypocrite.
Perhaps the most widespread hypocrisy is in the area of biomimicry – copying or drawing heavy inspiration from designs of biological systems to solve problems in engineering. It should be self-evident that it's only useful to copy a design if it was made by someone smarter than you – nobody cheats off the class clown. But biology is interpreted through the lens of evolution, which supposes that all life arose from undirected processes. This philosophy would not lead you to expect beautiful, complex, elegant designs in nature, but merely something cobbled together by random mutation and natural selection. This is certainly not what we find. Even the most “simple” cell is a factory of nanomachines so advanced that it will probably be at least 100 years before we could even begin to duplicate it. Biomimicry only makes sense if you assume an extremely intelligent creator. But hey, if atheists want to think that they're dumber than random processes, who am I to argue?
All of this only supports my previous assertion that commitment to atheism requires the ability to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Any study of the natural world reveals obvious design. Hypocritically, atheists are willing to attribute this design to aliens or other forces while mocking God and marginalizing Christians. If you're an atheist, take off the blinders and look around. Use your God-given brain. It doesn't take much to realize the existence of the Creator, and it's only a few logical steps from there to listen to your conscience, realize your sin, understand God's justice, and know your need for a Savior. To my fellow Christians: don't be intimidated by the pseudo-intellectualism, but be bold in proclaiming the gospel. Help the lost to see their hypocrisy and foolishness, and show them their need to repent and follow Christ.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
What Makes a Good Bible Version?
There is an ever-growing multitude of Bible versions available these days. I think the fact that all Bibles are not created equal is self-evident to anyone who has read a few different versions. The search for a good Bible is vitally important. After all, if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should accept no substitute. I'm sure you'd be angry if you found out your pastor was teaching lies and manipulating you for years. How much more would you be shocked to find similar dishonesty in your Bible?
In my experience, people make the Bible version issue a lot more complicated than it really is. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to study Greek and Hebrew, to do some research on various texts and their histories, and to just generally dig into this interesting topic. But not everyone is a scholar. I submit that the average Joe Christian can know enough to find the right Bible with just a few basic questions.
1) Is the translation faithful to the original text?
This should be obvious, but you'd be surprised. Many modern versions use a process called dynamic equivalence. In short, this process is more concerned with preserving the 'feel' of a passage than creating a formal translation. This means that if you're reading a Bible that was “translated” using dynamic equivalence, you aren't really reading the word of God. Instead, you're reading a paraphrase of God's word through the eyes of another person, with all of their biases and opinions built into the text.
Clearly, this is no good. Average Joe Christian, you can eliminate all Bibles that use dynamic equivalence from your search. This includes the NIV, NLT, and the good news Bible.
2) Does the translation come from the right source material?
To answer this question, we must do a bit more digging. Still, it's not beyond the understanding of Average Joe. Let's start by looking what the Bible has to say about this issue. God's word will be preserved down to the smallest mark until the end of this Earth (Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17). God will preserve his words in the hands of each generation (Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 33:11). God promises a severe curse to anyone who would add or take away from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19).
I want to now draw your attention to the verses that specifically promise that God's word will be in the hands of every generation. This means that God is not necessarily going to preserve his word in jars to be found and re-assembled thousands of years later. While we may find texts that were hidden away, they may or may not be God's preserved words. Again, the Biblical promise is that God's preserved word will be found in the hands of each generation.
Why is this important? Up until recently, Christians used Bibles that were in the family of the “received text”. In the late 1800s, a group of scholars made up of many heretics and unbelievers compiled the “critical text”, which has been used in nearly every modern translation, in whole or in part. The basis of this new text is a small number of new manuscripts which were significantly different from the received text (and each other as well). These new texts were supposedly better because they were younger, but they have been hidden away in jars and bookshelves for thousands of years, and were not used by God's people. Therefore, if we believe God's promises, the critical text should be rejected along with all versions that use it. There are many other reasons to reject the critical text, but I'm keeping this simple for you, Average Joe.
Now that we have eliminated Bible versions that use dynamic equivalency and those that use the critical text, what's left? The field of Bible versions has already been whittled down to one – the KJV. It's the only English Bible that holds water. Now, Average Joe Christian, wasn't that simple?
What's that you say, Average Joe? The KJV is too hard to read? Nonsense. It's very readable. Studies have rated the KJV's prose as “very easy” and suggested that it is written on about an 8th - 10th grade reading level. As for archaic language, if you come across words that you don't know, look them up in a dictionary. You might even learn something! Besides, it's much more important for a translation to be faithful to the original than to be 'easy'. Also consider that there are plenty of resources out there to assist in your Bible reading/study. One of my favorites is blue letter Bible.
So, the search for the right Bible is remarkably straightforward if you ask the right questions. It only requires that you recognize this as an issue worth some study. Should we accept anything less than God's words? I say we ought not to compromise on the slightest jot.
In my experience, people make the Bible version issue a lot more complicated than it really is. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to study Greek and Hebrew, to do some research on various texts and their histories, and to just generally dig into this interesting topic. But not everyone is a scholar. I submit that the average Joe Christian can know enough to find the right Bible with just a few basic questions.
1) Is the translation faithful to the original text?
This should be obvious, but you'd be surprised. Many modern versions use a process called dynamic equivalence. In short, this process is more concerned with preserving the 'feel' of a passage than creating a formal translation. This means that if you're reading a Bible that was “translated” using dynamic equivalence, you aren't really reading the word of God. Instead, you're reading a paraphrase of God's word through the eyes of another person, with all of their biases and opinions built into the text.
Clearly, this is no good. Average Joe Christian, you can eliminate all Bibles that use dynamic equivalence from your search. This includes the NIV, NLT, and the good news Bible.
2) Does the translation come from the right source material?
To answer this question, we must do a bit more digging. Still, it's not beyond the understanding of Average Joe. Let's start by looking what the Bible has to say about this issue. God's word will be preserved down to the smallest mark until the end of this Earth (Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17). God will preserve his words in the hands of each generation (Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 33:11). God promises a severe curse to anyone who would add or take away from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19).
I want to now draw your attention to the verses that specifically promise that God's word will be in the hands of every generation. This means that God is not necessarily going to preserve his word in jars to be found and re-assembled thousands of years later. While we may find texts that were hidden away, they may or may not be God's preserved words. Again, the Biblical promise is that God's preserved word will be found in the hands of each generation.
Why is this important? Up until recently, Christians used Bibles that were in the family of the “received text”. In the late 1800s, a group of scholars made up of many heretics and unbelievers compiled the “critical text”, which has been used in nearly every modern translation, in whole or in part. The basis of this new text is a small number of new manuscripts which were significantly different from the received text (and each other as well). These new texts were supposedly better because they were younger, but they have been hidden away in jars and bookshelves for thousands of years, and were not used by God's people. Therefore, if we believe God's promises, the critical text should be rejected along with all versions that use it. There are many other reasons to reject the critical text, but I'm keeping this simple for you, Average Joe.
Now that we have eliminated Bible versions that use dynamic equivalency and those that use the critical text, what's left? The field of Bible versions has already been whittled down to one – the KJV. It's the only English Bible that holds water. Now, Average Joe Christian, wasn't that simple?
What's that you say, Average Joe? The KJV is too hard to read? Nonsense. It's very readable. Studies have rated the KJV's prose as “very easy” and suggested that it is written on about an 8th - 10th grade reading level. As for archaic language, if you come across words that you don't know, look them up in a dictionary. You might even learn something! Besides, it's much more important for a translation to be faithful to the original than to be 'easy'. Also consider that there are plenty of resources out there to assist in your Bible reading/study. One of my favorites is blue letter Bible.
So, the search for the right Bible is remarkably straightforward if you ask the right questions. It only requires that you recognize this as an issue worth some study. Should we accept anything less than God's words? I say we ought not to compromise on the slightest jot.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Studying the Law to Understand Grace
It's my observation that in the realm of Christianity in the U.S., grace is discussed all over the place. It's on the radio, in those 'encouraging daily devotionals', and in sermons both heretical and doctrinally sound. It's not that grace is a bad thing. Indeed, without God's grace toward guilty sinners, we'd all be doomed without hope. Still, I frequently have the overwhelming impression that all the talk about grace is out of balance. Why? The idea of grace is meaningless without an understanding of sin and the law.
To expand on my previous point; if we accept the definition that grace is favor given to the undeserving, then our estimation of the value of grace is determined by the difference between what we get and what we think we deserve. What we get – what God gives us, is essentially a fixed quantity (forgiveness, adoption, heaven, etc.). The variable here is our opinion of what we deserve. If you think that your relation to God is positive or neutral, you will appreciate grace less than someone who understands that our relationship to God is very much in the negative (of course, I'm talking pre-salvation right now). There's a beautiful example of this in Luke 7:36-50. The pharisees gave little regard to Jesus' presence, but this sinner (quite possibly a whore or adulteress given their reactions) showed him love and reverence in the most humble way. The reason for the different attitudes is obvious – the Pharisees had fooled themselves into thinking that they were pretty much OK, but this woman knew that she was a terrible sinner.
This principle holds true for each of us. You won't even begin to appreciate God's grace toward you until you understand the depth of your sin. Of course, this is true of the sinner who needs to repent and be saved, but it is also true for Christians. You see, even though we have a wonderful relationship with God, we have to remember how we got here. It was God who saved us and brought us into this right relationship. While we should rejoice in our new life, we should also never forget the pit that God dragged us out of, because if it weren't for Him, that's where we'd still be. Also consider that your pit is even deeper than you thought, because Christ didn't just die for sins present and past, but also future (as a Christian). In other words, Christ died for you when you were a liar, disobedient, drunkard, cheater, adulterer, etc. But he also died for you when you failed to serve him, when you blasphemed His name by acting in a way inconsistent with your calling, when you failed to love Him with all of your heart, etc.
So how do you gain a better understanding of sin? Romans 3:20 declares, “by the law is the knowledge of sin”. Pretty straightforward, we go to the law. As a side note, we focus on the general moral application of the law, not the sacrificial and governmental aspects. Only the former applies to gentiles (non-Jews). In the law we find that God expects us to love Him with all our heart. We are to love others as we love ourselves. We must not lie, steal, disobey our parents, lust, or covet. A single violation of a single law is enough to condemn you as a sinner (James 2:10). Each and every offense is punishable by hell. Recall, it only took one sin from Adam for God to curse not only mankind, but also the beautiful universe he had just created. I'm guessing you've stored up more than one, or even just a few offenses. It's within reason to estimate the number of sins in an average person's life to be in the hundreds of thousands. Man's justice is so incomplete, but we can still see some parallels. Some of the worst criminals are given multiple life sentences. Can you imagine a criminal who has been convicted of a hundred thousand life sentences? You're a little bit closer to understanding your sin.
Again, I'm not saying we should stay in the past, nor should you re-live your past to the point that you're unnecessarily tempted by old sins. Christian life should be lived in victory, love, and service. However, it does some good to think on where we came from every once in a while. Reflect on God's law, think of every sin that you've committed, try to comprehend the magnitude of your sin, then reflect on the fact that Jesus wiped away every blot with His sacrifice. When you develop a better appreciation for the gospel you will find a greater love for the Lord, a desire to further know Him, and greater motivation to serve.
In conclusion, you must understand sin in order to understand grace. When grace is discussed without also explaining why we need it, the result can only be confusion. An understanding of sin can be found by studying God's law. Occasionally reflecting on our old life of sin can be healthy in order to have a greater appreciation for Christ.
To expand on my previous point; if we accept the definition that grace is favor given to the undeserving, then our estimation of the value of grace is determined by the difference between what we get and what we think we deserve. What we get – what God gives us, is essentially a fixed quantity (forgiveness, adoption, heaven, etc.). The variable here is our opinion of what we deserve. If you think that your relation to God is positive or neutral, you will appreciate grace less than someone who understands that our relationship to God is very much in the negative (of course, I'm talking pre-salvation right now). There's a beautiful example of this in Luke 7:36-50. The pharisees gave little regard to Jesus' presence, but this sinner (quite possibly a whore or adulteress given their reactions) showed him love and reverence in the most humble way. The reason for the different attitudes is obvious – the Pharisees had fooled themselves into thinking that they were pretty much OK, but this woman knew that she was a terrible sinner.
This principle holds true for each of us. You won't even begin to appreciate God's grace toward you until you understand the depth of your sin. Of course, this is true of the sinner who needs to repent and be saved, but it is also true for Christians. You see, even though we have a wonderful relationship with God, we have to remember how we got here. It was God who saved us and brought us into this right relationship. While we should rejoice in our new life, we should also never forget the pit that God dragged us out of, because if it weren't for Him, that's where we'd still be. Also consider that your pit is even deeper than you thought, because Christ didn't just die for sins present and past, but also future (as a Christian). In other words, Christ died for you when you were a liar, disobedient, drunkard, cheater, adulterer, etc. But he also died for you when you failed to serve him, when you blasphemed His name by acting in a way inconsistent with your calling, when you failed to love Him with all of your heart, etc.
So how do you gain a better understanding of sin? Romans 3:20 declares, “by the law is the knowledge of sin”. Pretty straightforward, we go to the law. As a side note, we focus on the general moral application of the law, not the sacrificial and governmental aspects. Only the former applies to gentiles (non-Jews). In the law we find that God expects us to love Him with all our heart. We are to love others as we love ourselves. We must not lie, steal, disobey our parents, lust, or covet. A single violation of a single law is enough to condemn you as a sinner (James 2:10). Each and every offense is punishable by hell. Recall, it only took one sin from Adam for God to curse not only mankind, but also the beautiful universe he had just created. I'm guessing you've stored up more than one, or even just a few offenses. It's within reason to estimate the number of sins in an average person's life to be in the hundreds of thousands. Man's justice is so incomplete, but we can still see some parallels. Some of the worst criminals are given multiple life sentences. Can you imagine a criminal who has been convicted of a hundred thousand life sentences? You're a little bit closer to understanding your sin.
Again, I'm not saying we should stay in the past, nor should you re-live your past to the point that you're unnecessarily tempted by old sins. Christian life should be lived in victory, love, and service. However, it does some good to think on where we came from every once in a while. Reflect on God's law, think of every sin that you've committed, try to comprehend the magnitude of your sin, then reflect on the fact that Jesus wiped away every blot with His sacrifice. When you develop a better appreciation for the gospel you will find a greater love for the Lord, a desire to further know Him, and greater motivation to serve.
In conclusion, you must understand sin in order to understand grace. When grace is discussed without also explaining why we need it, the result can only be confusion. An understanding of sin can be found by studying God's law. Occasionally reflecting on our old life of sin can be healthy in order to have a greater appreciation for Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)