Category Archives: Sin
Total Depravity at its Finest
Proud Atheists have an interesting post about masturbation. It illustrates that people who are in open defiance of the Lord often misunderstand things to their own destruction.
Before we find out why, we need a truly Biblical perspective on masturbation. For that, let’s look at the Got Questions website’s take on masturbation here. The writers basically agree with my own perspective–masturbation is not a sin, but is often the result of sinful activities. Lustful thoughts, pornography, or anything else that leads to masturbation is what should be dealt with, not masturbation itself.
So let’s just say that masturbation is conduct unbecoming of the Christian and leave it at that. We can argue that any conduct unbecoming of a Christian is sin another time. Masturbation is best left between God and the individual.
That said, it alarms me the number of commenters in the thread who are proud of the fact that they masturbate. They are taking a private matter and making it public knowledge. And they are proud of the fact that they are doing it.
Masturbation, as outlined above, is likely the symptom of a deeper problem. It is this problem that must be dealt with, whether it be lust or pornorgraphy, or something else. Masturbation isn’t the issue that God has in view when he discusses human sexuality; it is those other things that he wants us to abstain from. If those things are dealt with, then suddenly masturbation is no longer a problem.
So if we assume that masturbation is the result of a deeper pathology, then what we have, again, is an example of a culture that has lost its fear of God. People who do not want God to define the rules of human sexuality. These are people who think that they know better than our creator what is for our own good. Masturbation is a sign of sexual sin, and these people are trumpeting from the rooftops that they are involved in it. Not only involved in it, but proud of their involvement.
Total depravity at its finest.
On Original Sin
Many Christians deny the doctrine of original sin on the basis of Ezekiel 18:19-20:
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
The question before us is this: are we held responsible for Adam’s sin? If so, why? Does it not clearly say in Ezekiel 18 that the soul that sins shall die, and that the wickedness of the wicked will be on himself?
Christian Hypocrisy
Image via US Magazine
It is difficult for me to fathom the blatant hypocrisy that Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean has engaged in recently.
As a sister in Christ, she has no business being in a beauty pageant to begin with, since the goal of these is to decide which of the oogle-able women is the most oogle-able (to borrow a phrase from Craig French). As I posted previously, beauty contests are nothing more than excuses for guys to stare at beautiful women, and that is specifically condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5:28. Carrie is creating a stumbling block for her brothers in Christ (condemned by Paul in Rom 14:13-23) by entering into such a beauty pageant in the first place.
But now we have another problem:
Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. (1 Pet 3:3-6)
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim 2:8-9)
This call to modesty forbids what Carrie did just recently: she posed nude! I can’t believe that any self-professing Christian would think that it is okay to pose nude. Yet here we are.
The level of hypocrisy that this move demonstrates is unreal. These types of things just add more ammunition to the gun that atheists fire at us all the time: “Christians are nothing but hypocrites.” Moves like this that ignore God strengthen the atheist resolve that there is no God. “For if there was, Christians would obey him without question.” And here is a self-professed sister in Christ disobeying God openly.
Carrie, as a brother in Christ I call you to repent of your sins and to return to a more biblical lifestyle. As Paul pointed out in Romans 8:38-39, no sin is too big that it will separate you from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Repent and God will forgive you.
Here’s a New Spin on an Old Debate
Rey, who also goes by Beowulf2k8, has been challenging me on how free our free wills really are. Being Reformed, I hold that God can and does influence our free wills for good and for ill. Rey believes that if God influences us in that way, that we are not truly guilty of committing sin.
Let’s back a step up and look at this from a different perspective. John Piper, still thoroughly Reformed, has a different take here. Piper wonders, “Does God lead us into temptation?”
Piper feels that God guides our every step (Prv 20:24). The same Scripture that asks God not to lead us into temptation (Mt 6:13) also says that God doesn’t tempt us (Jms 1:13). He wouldn’t, but he doesn’t have to. As it turns out, every step we take is a temptation to do wrong. God leads us through temptations (cf. Mt 4:1), but he doesn’t tempt us.
Each temptation that God leads us through is an opportunity to glorify him by doing the Christian thing: not yielding to the temptation. Don’t pray for a life free of temptations. That’s unrealistic. Pray instead that you won’t yield to the temptations that will come your way.
Who Has the Higher View of God?
The age-old problem is that if God has an eternal decree, then how is it possible that man has a free will? And yet both are taught in Scripture, so it must be the case that this is somehow true. Rey, also calling himself Beowulf2k8, makes light of this whole issue in a response to a video theologian John Calvin did for me here.
What Rey reveals is a low view of Scripture and a low view of God’s sovereignty. I know that Rey has a low view of Scripture based on this post, in which he claims that the Bible contains a contradiction. Instead of resolving it, Rey gives more weight to James because James wasn’t an adulterer or a murderer (as David quite clearly was). That’s the easy way out. The more difficult way out is to try to figure out what the proper way to understand both texts together would be.
Christians and Beauty Pagents
By now, everyone is aware of the situation with Miss California Carrie Prejean in the Miss USA pageant. She spoke against gay marriage and it cost her the pageant. I don’t want to focus on that incident, nor do I want to focus on the media’s coverage of it. What I want to consider is the Christian perspective of beauty pageants.
We’ll start with the most obvious verse: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). Now, I’m not stretching it much to say that there is only one reason to watch a beauty pageant. That is to watch beautiful young women prance about in bikinis, showing off their bodies. This is a clear violation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:28. No one can tell me that they aren’t looking at the young women in the pageant with lustful intent.
A pageant, like Miss USA, creates a serious stumbling block for Christian men. Romans 14:13 tells us never to put a stumbling block in the way of a brother. That is, a fellow Christian. By participating in a pageant like this, self-professed Christian Carrie Prejean putting a stumbling block in the way of her brothers in Christ.
You could always argue that Christians should just do what I do with beauty pageants–not watch them. As someone who struggles with the sin of lust, I can tell you that that may be much easier said than done. Granted, I was on harder stuff than beauty pageants. It took me years to kick the porn habit and I still struggle with it every day. So it may not be a simple matter of looking the other way during a pageant–our hypothetical brother in Christ might not be able to curb temptation.
I’m not arguing for all beauty pageants to be eliminated. But I want my sisters in Christ who might be considering following Miss Prejean’s example to think about the lustful feelings that they will inevitably stir in my brothers in Christ who haven’t yet developed the willpower to look away. Do you want to be responsible for someone else stumbling, sister? Read Romans 14:13-23 and Mark 9:42.
Deconversion Story
Johhny Bradford, a guest poster over at Unreasonable Faith, has posted his essay on why he no longer believes. It’s filled with all of the usual things for which I thought Christian apologetics have provided adequate answers, but I suppose not since I repeatedly see these same tired old arguments popping up in deconversion story after deconversion story. Let’s analyze this one and see if we can clear matters up.
The first one is typical: how could a loving God send people into a state of eternal torment for simply not believing in him? Well, the problem with that notion is Bradford’s theology of man. He believes that people are basically good, that we begin life with an “A” and gradually decline in points until we have an “F.”
But that isn’t what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we are dead in sin. Keeping with the grading scale metaphor, we are born with an F. But it goes deeper than that: we can’t earn an A, no matter what! Hell isn’t what God wants for us, hell is what we deserve. A fair and just God would send any human being that comes before his judgment to hell.
Thank God that he is also merciful. Because it isn’t his will that any should perish, but that all reach repentance, he has sent his only Son Jesus to pay the penatly for us and die in our place. All a person has to do is have faith that God has already accomplished his (or her) salvation, and that’s it.
The Old Testament sacrificial system pointed the way to the New Testament’s single sacrifice for all of our sins. The book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. So this sacrifice was necessary in order to appease the justice of God, which demands that he take action against sin rather than ignore it.
People go to hell on their own merit. I read once on a T-shirt that free will never brought anyone to heaven, but it sent a lot of people to hell. I forget now who said that (I want to say it was Spurgeon), but there is much wisdom in that saying. Whether you believe in Christ or not, you still sin and God must punish sin. Any sin, no matter how minor, makes you hell-bound. It has nothing to do with believing in or not believing in God. Only by placing your faith and trust in the finished work on Calvary can you avoid hell.
Which leads us to Bradford’s next point. Christians behave the same way as their non-Christian counterparts. The fancy terminology here is hypocrisy. Here, I agree with him. According to the intro to dcTalk’s song “What if I Stumble,” the speaker says that “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowlege Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.”
Christians aren’t suddenly made perfect by belief in Christ. Salvation is a once-in-a-lifetime event, but sanctification is an ongoing process that is often neglected. I blame the church in this case. There is a servere lack of discipleship in the church today. The main congregations are measured by baptisms, not retention. In reality, both should be a factor in determining the health of the congregation. In this, Bradford should take some of the blame as he is termed a “recovering Christian pastor.” So, as shephard of a flock, what did he do to help out with that problem? We wonder.
The atrocities of the Bible are discussed at great length here. The justification for what can only be described as mass genocide lies in the same theology of man previously discussed–man doesn’t start life with an A, he starts it with an F. Since the penalty for sin is death, those deaths were deserved. No one can stand innocent before God.
Of course, if I believed that hell was unjust, that hypocrisy was part of the case against the church, and that the atrocities of the Bible were unwarranted, then I would discard this faith, too. But I don’t believe in any of that stuff. Nor do I believe the typical atheist mischaracterization of those things, as Bradford clearly demonstrates that he does.
In all, I stand amazed that ministers of the Word can be duped by the secular opinion of the Bible and its contents. After all, we are taught that the world sees the Bible through a darkened lens, that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness doesn’t understand it. Yet, these same criticisms keep popping up over and over again, even though they are answered by apologists like myself.
Mass Genocide in the Bible
This is one of the ten most viewed posts of all time. To read all ten, download this free e-book.
Although it is rarely taught in Sunday School, there can be no doubt that mass genocide occurs with alarming regularity in the Old Testament. Just crack open a copy of Michael Earl’s self-published wonder Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You and read a few chapters. Over and over again, Israel kills not just the soldiers of the territory they invade, but the women and children, too.
All of this takes place at the behest of God himself, who is the one that orders the killings to take place. God very often indicates that he wants no survivors left.
This, according to our most scathing critics, leaves a huge moral dilemma: how can we continue to call the Bible the “Good Book” if it contains more violence than the average video game? Was the bloodshed and violence necessary?
Sins of Scripture VI: Anti-Semitism
The Christian faith has a long and convoluted history of anti-Semitism. This has always been strange to me, since our faith was born from Judaism. I have, in more recent months, tried to understand the Jewish approach to God (which has started to lead me out of Calvinist theology and into a more Arminian perspective). I think that Judaism has a lot to teach us about the roots of our faith, and we should shed the anti-Semitism that too often accompanies our faith.
As for Bishop John Shelby Spong, in his book The Sins of Scripture, he relates a very similar point of view. The biggest difference between us is that he doubts the historicity of Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Jesus. Spong’s point of contention is that the earliest Christian writings, Paul’s epistles, bear no reference to a betrayal. The gospels, in Spong’s view, came much later (a.d. 75 or later) and therefore are not accurate representations of history.
Paul alludes to the night that Jesus was betrayed in 1 Corinthians 11:23, but Spong says that the Greek is “handed over,” which carries no connotation of betrayal. This isn’t correct according to Strong’s Greek Dictionary. That aside, Spong apparently doesn’t think that people read carefully nowadays. Later, he refers to the story of Joseph and his brothers, and tells us that the exact same phrase is used when describing what Joseph’s brother Judah did to Joseph! That phrase has the connotation of betrayal.
Because of the connection between Judah and Judas, as well as numerous other connections to Old Testament stories, Spong has concluded that the Judas Iscariot story is not real history. The early Christians made it up based on several stories of Scripture. I suppose Spong has never heard of “fulfilled prophecy.”
Although based on the dates he gives for authorship of the New Testament, I would suppose not. Liberal dating of the New Testament is based on the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70. The assumption is that since Jesus accurately predicts things that take place in a.d. 70, the gospels must have been written after a.d. 70. This is nonsense; the gospels date from the a.d. 50s, with Mark perhaps even earlier than that. Conservative scholars, ones that I doubt Spong would consider consulting, put the dates of every NT document as prior to a.d. 70, although that might be stretching it. The gospel of John and Revelation almost certainly came in the a.d. 90s.
Spong and I, while we see eye-to-eye on the issue of anti-Semitism in Christianity, do not meet each other anywhere else in this issue. Anti-Semitism must surely be dealt with, and I believe the way to do that is to realize that the Jewish people did God’s will in putting Jesus to death. His death and subsequent resurrection means victory over death for all who believe in him. That was God’s will all along. Now the Jewish people have only to accept Jesus as their Messiah and they, too, can enjoy eternal life with the Father in heaven.
Sins of Scripture V: Child Abuse
Even though the next section of his book is about child abuse, there is very little argument in the next section of The Sins of Scripture that actually has to do with child abuse. Instead, Spong focuses on what he calls the ultimate act of divine child abuse: the Atonement. Of the Atonement, Bishop John Shelby Spong says the following:
Let me state this boldly and succinctly: Jesus did not die for your sins or my sins. That proclamation is theological nonsense. It only breeds more violence as we seek to justify the negativity that religious people dump on others because we can no longer carry its load. We must rid ourselves of it. One can hardly refrain from exhorting parents not to spare the rod lest they spoil their child if the portrait of God at the heart of the Christian story is that of an angry parent who punishes the divined Son because he can take it and we cannot. (173)
In this, Spong stands apart from every great thinker of Christian past, as well as from Scripture itself. There is much evidence from Scripture that the Atonement is how God intended us to interpret Christ’s death. But Spong uses those very same reasons to deny the vicarious Atonement. The Jewish feast of the Atonement prefigured Christ’s death; Spong simply asserts that this feast is where the imagery of Christ’s death is drawn from. Not that the feast prefigured the sacrifice on Calvary, rather the followers of Christ found meaning in his death by the feast of the Atonement.
No divine inspiration played a part in this, says Spong. This was grieved followers searching for a meaning in a tragedy. This would also be a veiled denial of the Resurrection, since the death of Christ was only temporary according to both the Bible and Christian tradition.
The assertion that the feast of the Atonement doesn’t prefigure Christ’s death directly contradicts the main thesis of the letter to the Hebrews. Since, however, Spong denies that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it is no surprise that he completely re-thinks entire portions of Christian theology, no matter how essential to salvation that portion may be. And one’s Christology is central to Christianity, as the Bible teaches:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (Jn 3:16-18)
Back Rome Again 