Blog Archives
What are Doctrinal Divisions Really About?
Doctrinal divisions that permeate the church so profusely, at their core, aren’t about what Scripture says. Only the King James Version Onlyists dispute what Scripture says. We’ve taken them, and the famous NIV Quiz, on before. The divisions are over what Scripture means.
Case in point is the recent informal blog debate between Matthew Bellisario and the pseudonymous “TurretinFan.” The crux of the debate is whose interpretation of Romans 14 is correct–Mr. Bellisario, or TF. Mr. Bellisario insists, and correctly I believe, that Romans 14 is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day who would impose the Law on Christians. Further, such a passage doesn’t remove from the Church the authority to impose new holy days and bind Christians to obeying them.
I agree with Mr. Bellisario’s assessment of the passage. I agree that it is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day and I agree that it doesn’t preclude the Church from imposing holy days upon Christians.
However, the imposition of new holy days goes against the spirit of the passage, and indeed the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again to free us from the legalism of the Jewish Law. This is TF’s primary point. However, Mr. Bellisario doesn’t see the Catholic Church as imposing a new legalism on Christians. This is why the two are talking past each other–Mr. Bellisario is unable to empathize with TF’s position. Mr. Bellisario sees the Catholic Church as the sole infallible authority for determining Christian morality and living, rather than giving Scripture that place.
So, what is my opinion of Romans 14? I believe that it applies to all holy days, new or old. As TF points out, Scripture is like a fine gem with many facets. It is important to look at all opinions, past and present, to get a feel for something that you might miss. I also agree with Mr. Bellisario that Romans 14 doesn’t preclude the addition of new holy days, however there is no authority anywhere in Scripture that confers the power to bind Christians under threat of mortal sin to observe these new holy days.
Does that mean that we are free of the Sabbath day? By no means. As TF reminds us, the Sabbath goes back to creation and is therefore binding on all people. The obligation to reserve a day of worship for God alone was not erased by the cross, since it predates the Law. The Cross is the end of the Law.
While I agree that new holy days aren’t out of the realm of the church’s authority, binding them on all Christians under penalty of mortal sin is out of the reach of the church.
I highly reccommend reading the informal debate. The links above are to the start posts of the debate.
On Original Sin
Image via Wikipedia
Beowulf2k8 doesn’t believe that the doctrine of original sin is biblical in light of Ezekiel 18:20:
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.
Beowulf, in the comment section of this post, says:
Adam’s sin only brings physical death and the inclination towards sin. We do not inherit its guilt so as to be born or conceived damned, nor can we be damned for his sin since God explicitly states “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Physical death and the inclination toward sin are only two of the effects of the Fall. The other effect, the effect that Beowulf denies, is imputed sin. Craig French (aka Antipelagian) rightly points out the consequences of such a belief system:
If you want to reject our Fall in Adam, you must also reject our Salvation through the Second Adam. Denying federal representation cuts both ways…you reject original sin, you reject Christ’s atonement.
Let’s take a moment to look at the doctrine of imputed sin, then we’ll see why it is so important for the Atonement. First, we need to understand that we live in a individualist society and that the Bible was written by and to a collectivist society. Collectivist societies have a strong sense of identity with the family unit. This is woven all throughout the Bible. Consider the numerous genealogies that are given. The individual identity was never as important as the family, and the head of the family (the father) gave the entire family its reputation.
In this sort of society, the son would expect to suffer for the sins of his father.
Adam is the federal head of the human race. By blood, all of us are descended from Adam. We take our ultimate family identification from him. This means that, in a collectivist sense, we should expect to suffer the consequences of his sin, since he is the head of our race. In a collectivist society, this would be the norm and no one would have the problem that Beowulf has with it.
Adam’s sin is therefore imputed to us.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, emphasis added)
Sin and death have entered the world through Adam, and have spread to all men. By both nature and choice, men are sinners. “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom 5:15, emphasis added). Through that one sin, many died. But there is good news:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:18-19, emphasis added)
Here the apostle is contrasting Adam’s act of disobedience with Christ’s act of obedience. Because of Adam’s disobedience, many were made sinners. But because of one act of obedience by Jesus Christ, many are justified before God and considered righteous. If you reject the first premise, then you are left with no basis for the second premise.
Put another way, if you reject Adam’s imputed sin, you have no basis for accepting Christ’s imputed righteousness. You may stand before God justified on your own merit. The Apostle Paul condemns such thinking when he writes:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added; see also 2 Tim 1:9; Tts 3:6; and Rom 3:20, 28)
Personal Testimonies
Although atheists disagree, I think that personal testimony of encounters with God are some of the most powerful pieces of evidence in favor of God’s existence. Although personal experiences are subjective, each run through the filter of one’s own previous experiences, education, and background, the foundation of the Christian religion itself is based upon personal experience.
Moses had several personal encounters with God. First, at the burning bush, then later atop Mt. Sinai. It is through these personal encounters that we got the Law. The apostle Paul had such a personal encounter with God that it changed the way he thought about Jewish Law and made him an ardent defender of the faith that he persecuted.
I remember a good friend’s grandfather telling me about his own personal encounter with God. It was at that friend’s wedding three years ago. He told me that he had died, but that God sent him back for the express purpose of telling everyone that story. And he does; that story is one of the first things he tells everyone new that he meets.
This man is rational and sane, yet he claims to have had this profound encounter with God. Are we just going to dismiss his experience as a hallucination? As the product of a broken mind? Or can we accept this story as true, as an encounter with the living God?
Personally, I favor the third option. An otherwise sane person would know the difference between a hallucination and reality. A crazy person would manifest other signs of insanity. No, I think that the third option best fits the facts as they stand. I believe that he had an encounter with the living God.
Most encounters with God aren’t so dramatic as meeting him face-to-face, as in the above examles. Most, I believe, are had through other people and circumstances in our lives. For example, my wedding was a gift from God. We planned it in less than a month, and everything came together with no fuss whatsoever. Normally, something of that magnitude would have caused numerous snags and problems, but not this time. I believe that that was an encounter with God.
I have a friend who prayed for a sign and drove past a church with a single neon sign that said “HOPE.” He passed that same church each and everyday at the same time and had never noticed the sign before. Maybe it was just a coincidence that he did this time, but I think otherwise. I think that this was an encounter with God.
My wife and I have fertility problems. I was also very sick (and thus faced considerable difficulty) during her ovulation, yet we were able to conceive our daughter on the first try. Maybe that is also a coincidence, but knowing what I know about the human body and how many things have to fall into place for conception to happen, I believe that this is also an encounter with God.
Once I remember feeling unappreciated at work. Even more than normal. An older lady happened to be the only customer around, and she told me what a great job she thought I was doing taking care of her and that she knew I would go far in this life because of my work ethic. She gave me a hug before she left. I felt energized and happy–this was exactly what I needed. This was an encounter with God.
Most encounters with God are just what I have described above–events and people that touch us in a way that we need at that moment. What about you, readers? Have you any personal stories about encounters with God? Would you like to read more personal encounters with God? Sign up for the message board Is God Imaginary and share them in this thread, or just read the stories that others have posted. Comments are disabled here to encourage your visit to the message boards.
The Bondage of the Will
Read the entire article here.
Image via Wikipedia
It’s obvious from looking at the current state of the world that the human condition is broken. Wars, invasions, suicide bombers using women and children. The mayor of one the largest cities in the country is facing charges ranging from perjury to obstruction of justice–all while his city is crumbling economically around him. What is going on in the world today? Is this all we have to look forward to? More of the same?
Left to our own devices, we humans sin. The effects of sin are all around us, and can be seen daily simply by picking up a newspaper, watching the news on TV, or reading the RSS newsfeeds. Why the propensity to sin?
Mankind simply has it in his heart to sin. God has a perfect plan for our lives, and we can only have it by perfect obedience to his Law. Not the Mosaic Law, mind you, but the Law of God that is written in the hearts of all mankind, that which we instinctively know is right and wrong morally. The Mosaic Law is often points to the standard, but it is far from the standard. We know the standard. Read the rest of this entry
I Don’t Believe in Atheists
Recently, I’ve started reading an excellent book by Chris Hedges with the provocative title I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges, no friend of either Christianity or the New Atheism, is systematically picking apart the claims of the New Atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins). The trick is that he is doing it from a secular perspective–he hates Christianity as much as the New Atheists do, and makes no bones about saying so. In fact, he’s written a book dismantling the position of Christianity called American Fascism, which I plan to read next.
What makes this book interesting is that Hedges hits the nail right on the head when he discusses the real problem with the God debate. The real problem is the failure of each side to acknowledge the problem of sin. Human beings are sinful by nature, argues Hedges, but both the Religious Right and the New Atheists see their position as sinless. Therefore, they try to offer humanity a utopian world but neither can deliver this promise because of their innate sinfulness.
Humanity progresses scientifically, but regresses morally. This is the root cause of our natural resource depletion, and our continued use of technology for warfare rather than the good of humanity. Hedges believes that any proposed solution to the impending economic, political, and environmental crises must consider the human element of sinfulness. It has to be more nuanced than the Religious Right’s solution of letting Jesus rebuild the earth and the New Atheist’s solution of getting rid of religion (which stands in the way of their god of reason).
I agree with Hedges insofar as a solution must be found for these impending crises. I believe with all of my heart that Jesus will return to earth to set up a new Kingdom upon it, but I believe that that Blessed Hope may be yet far off. Therefore, we must preserve what we have now and sustain the earth for our children. Jesus often portrays the relationship between God and man as a landowner to his stewards. The stewards are always held accountable by the landowner to how the owner’s property was treated while he was away. I believe that the same will be true when Jesus returns again: he will hold humankind accountable for the way we treated his property, the earth, while he was away.
I agree with Hedges that the Bible reveals spiritual truths. I agree with the problem of human sinfulness, and I agree that any solution offered to the complex human condition should be more nuanced than what the New Atheists and the Religious Right currently offer.
I disagree with Hedges in that I believe the Bible was written to reveal history, not just spiritual truths. I believe in a literal six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. Hedges doesn’t believe in that stuff–he thinks that the Bible is only meant to convey spiritual truths through myths. I’m not sure if Hedges believes in a literal Jesus, but obviously I believe in that (having challenged interpretations to the contrary on this blog before).
So far, I’m hooked on this book and I hope that the rest is as good as the first chapter.
Thoughts on Homosexuality
Andrew Faris from Christians in Context has a very thoughtful post on homosexuality here.
Why do Christians treat homosexuality differently than they do other sins? Someone who is gay is struggling with a sin the same as all of us struggle with our own sins. We should be gracious and welcoming when a homosexual couple comes into our church, and point them toward the light of Christ, who can free them from their homosexual bondage.
I can hear the objections from the gay community already. “Homosexuals are born that way. God wouldn’t want us to deny a part of ourselves to please him.” The problem is that Jesus does ask us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him (Lk 9:23). We are sinful creatures. Denying any sin is like denying a part of ourselves, and this is what Jesus calls us as Christians to do.
Trust me: I struggle with my sins every bit as much as a gay person would struggle with his homosexuality after coming to Christ. It is a daily struggle for me not to fall back into old patterns of sinfulness, as it will be for the gay person to come to Christ. But there is no sin too big for Christ to handle, if we submit to his will.
Terrible Advice from Atheist Revolution
VJack from Atheist Revolution has given some terrible advice about witnessing to atheists. He says not to do it. I advocate ignoring that advice completely. VJack says:
I know your church says you are supposed to do this and that you’ll win friends and magic Jesus points for your efforts. I know your bible makes you think that this is what your god wants. I even know that your failures are more important than your successes because they reinforce your persecution complex. But don’t do it.
First, Jesus–not the church–says that we are supposed to do this (see Mt 28:19-20). As disciples of Him, I don’t see us disobeying the words of our Lord because VJack says so.
Second, what exactly are these “magic Jesus points” and how do I earn them? The last time I checked, the Bible teaches that it is Jesus who saves us and we cannot earn salvation. Following His commands are done out of love and free choice rather than some sort of compulsion or game.
The best witness to atheists, I think, doesn’t come from words but the way we live our lives. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.” Along the same lines, he said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” Living the Word of God to the best of your ability (Rom 12:9-21) will show the atheists that our chosen lifestyle is superior to their own. The atheists will want what we have. The words that VJack hates so much won’t even be necessary.
Recap: Witnessing to atheists? Do it with enthusiasm!
Quest for the Historical Jesus
Liberal scholarship has agreed on one point and one point alone: the Jesus of history is not the Jesus presented in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rook Hawkins, co-founder and self-styled ancient texts expert of the Rational Response Squad, has utilized this as the starting point for his article, “Which Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder?” The foundation of this article is a prior article in which Rook examines the genre of the gospels and concludes that they were never intended to be read as biographies. It is with that article that I will start, because if an argument is based on a faulty premise, then its conclusion is nothing more than fruit from a poisoned tree.
Are the gospels ancient biographies or not? Apologist J.P. Holding asserts the fact that they are is “beyond dispute.” Rook disagrees, with the following three objections: Read the rest of this entry
FSM used by God?
Sometimes, I do work that doesn’t require a lot of mental engagement. While I’m doing that, I come up with some weird thoughts and those can occasionally turn into blog entries. This is one of those times.
Let me back up to when I was a manager at Wendy’s. I had purchased a lot of books that showed how to build a team by tactics mined from Scripture. These included The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell and Teach Your Team to Fish by Laurie Beth Jones. I used a lot of the tactics I learned, but one thing I never did was give Christ the credit. Neither in prayer nor to the people I managed.
I think that that was a very bad move. Scripture says that “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33). I was a coward; I thought it was more important to not offend people by bringing religion into the issue than to give any credit to where the techniques I was using came from.
And so I met with little success.
Now, I’m using the same techniques at Burger King, but I’m acknowledging their source–God–proud and loud. Not surprisingly, I’m meeting with much more success.
My point is the Scripture I quoted above: “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).
As I understand Intelligent Design, it is merely a scientific expression of the creation account of Genesis without naming the entity that created. It acknowledges a supernatural creator without defining that creator. Sounds an awful lot like what I did with the leadership techniques. I acknowledged that I got them from the Bible, but did not acknowledge God.
Intelligent design does the same thing: acknowledges a creator without acknowledging God. “[W]hoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).
The problem is that God is inextricably tied to His creation. To know His creation is to know Him: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20, emphasis added).
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been used by atheists to shoot down intelligent design. Or has it? Perhaps the Noodly Master has been used by God to shoot down intelligent design because God doesn’t appreciate being taken out of the equation by otherwise well-meaning scientists.
Let’s be honest: Is intelligent design really how we want to preach God? Do we really want to leave the possibility of other creator deities open for discussion? It doesn’t seem as though that is how God would want it. Did He not say to Moses:
You shall have no other gods before me. . . . You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:3, 5-6)
Why on earth would we think that intelligent design is God-honoring? Leaving open the possibility of other deities invites people to worship and serve them. But what is the Great Commission? Is it to get people to think that the universe has a creator, and it might be the Christian God, and you can serve Him if you think that He is the creator?
No! It is to “Go . . . and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20, emphasis added). Note that Jesus doesn’t talk about possibilities; He gives concrete commands. He tells us in no uncertain terms that we are baptizing these people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the triune Christian God, the creator of the universe. There are no maybe’s with Jesus.
There should be no maybe’s with us either. We should be able to stand up and say what Paul said to the Ephesian elders: “Therefore(A) I testify to you this day that(B) I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for(C) I did not shrink from declaring to you(D) the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). We, too, should not shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God. Like Paul, we should not be ashamed of the gospel (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Tim 1:8-12).
Look at Ken Hamm compared to ID proponents. I’m not saying that I agree with a 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans. I’m starting to lean back toward a more scientific view, which includes evolution. But, I admire people like Dr. Hamm much more than I admire ID proponents because Ken Hamm is preaching the whole counsel of God! He isn’t afraid of the gospel.
ID proponents should spend more effort to put God’s name into their work. Maybe it would become more recognized. Maybe even accepted in scientific circles. It doesn’t sound likely, but neither is Christianity. Putting God’s name back into the tips and tricks I learned certainly worked for me, and I believe that it can work for ID.
Handle a Poisonous Snake, Get Bit, Die. Big Surprise.
This is one of the ten most viewed posts of all time. To read all ten, download this free e-book.
My good friend Jeff Haws, as well as Rev. Dan from OutChurched and VJack from Atheist Revolution have posted on this little news item about Christians handling snakes. With this seemingly insignificant news item gathering a firestorm of attention from atheists, I thought it would be a good idea to address the issue from a Biblical perspective.
I consider myself a reasonable man of faith. I believe in God’s Word as it espoused in the Bible. I ascribe inerrancy only to the autographs–that is, the original manuscripts. I believe that the Bible is written in clear, everyday language and doesn’t require a Master’s degree from seminary to interpret the myriad of passages within it. This clear, everyday language must be considered for the use of literary devices–such as similes, metaphors, hyperbole, and others–as well as for context.
Part of context would be understanding that “you” in a direct quotation would apply in a general sense only to those people present when the quotation was uttered.
As a reasonable man of faith, I believe that if I were to handle a poisonous snake, that it would bite me, and without proper medical attention, I would die. No big surprise there. I believe that despite this promise in the Bible:
Go everywhere in the world, and tell the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved, but anyone who does not believe will be punished. And those who believe will be able to do these things as proof: They will use my name to force out demons. They will speak in new languages. They will pick up snakes and drink poison without being hurt. They will touch the sick, and the sick will be healed. (Mk 16:15-18, emphasis added)
Earlier I spoke of context. In context, Jesus said this to the eleven apostles (v. 14). He did not give this statement as a general instruction to all of His followers. That means that these are signs and wonders that accompany apostles.
Elsewhere, I’ve defended this passage by saying that promises made to the apostles are fulfilled by the church. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit disseminates spiritual gifts to people as He sees fit (1 Cor 12:11). This means that gifts such as those are given to the church, not to individuals. Among the gifts mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the the entire passage from Corinthians 12 (vv. 7-11), snake charming and poison drinking are conspicuous by absence.
I’m not going back on that stance. But, I am going back on one thing: Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the early Greek MSS. That means that this promise was likely not part of the autograph–which means that I cannot wholeheartedly ascribe inerrancy to it.
All said, I too can marvel with my atheist friends at the sheer stupidity of someone who would handle a poisonous snake as part of a worship service. Even if I believed that the signs and wonders that accompanied apostles would be apportioned by the Holy Spirit to every Christian and was able to ascribe inerrancy to Mark 16:9-20, I still wouldn’t be surprised if this happened. Ultimately, we should follow Jesus’ example and not test God (Mat 4:1-11; cf. Deut 6:16).
Back Rome Again 