Blog Archives
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)
Bondage of the Will II: Scriptural Proof
Read the entire article here.
Image via Wikipedia
In my last post on the bondage of the human will, I established the existence of a moral law outside of ourselves. Atheists and theists can agree on the presence of such a law, but we cannot agree on its source. The atheist thinks that memes or evolution produces it; the theist believes that God produces it. Either way, we have arrived at the same point: a law exists.
I also established that man, more often than not, transgresses this moral law. It may be something small, such as a little white lie, or it might be huge, like a murder. Mankind isn’t generally good as many churches today teach. Man isn’t sick in sin, he is dead in sin. Man is generally evil.
The Bible deals with this issue in many places. The first good place to look is Romans 1. Paul begins by talking about the pagans living in Rome at the time, and finishes with this description of them:
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rom 1:28-32)
Paul immediately follows that with this description of the Christians living in Rome:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:1-11, emphasis added)
So whether the reader is a Jew or a Greek, it doesn’t matter, for both are full of unrighteousness. This careful argument builds until its climax at chapter 3, verse 23: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul even includes himself as a sinner in chapter 7:
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:18-24)
I think that if we are honest with ourselves, we will see the same pattern in our own lives. We wage a war with our mind to do what is right, but our flesh is weak and we give into it and do what is wrong. That’s every last one of us wretched human beings–we are not sick with sin, we are dead in sin. Look at Ephesians 2:1-3:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (emphasis added)
But it isn’t just us; it is all of creation. It goes back to the Fall in Genesis 3. The Fall affected not just man, but all of creation. All of creation groans under the pains of childbirth (Rom 8:22). And the worst part is, according to the book of Proverbs, we don’t see this: “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirits” (16:2). This is why so many churches today preach that man is generally good. And what does Proverbs say about people who are wise in their own sight? “There is more hope for a fool than him” (26:12b).
Related Articles
- The Gospel starts with Sin (anointedplace.wordpress.com)
- Love Him? Obey Him (pjsprayerline.blogspot.com)
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.
Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson
This is a call for V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, to resign is episcopate because of his unrepentant sin of homosexuality.
The apostle Paul said:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 9-10, emphasis added)
And:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)
Based on the Law’s prohibition on homosexuality (Lev 18:22) and the apostle Paul’s clear echo of it, I would say that homosexuality is wrong. Let’s look at the qualifications for a bishop (overseer):
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:2-7, emphasis added)
I am not considering Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s qualifications outside of the boldfaced terms. I hope he has been an good bishop in every other area and served his people well. However, he does not fit the qualifications of a bishop and should therefore resign his office.
Bishop Robinson is gay, and has joined in “marriage” to his long time partner. This is unacceptable. Homosexuality is a sin, and people who live in unrepentant sin should not serve in any capacity in ministry. This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his diocese, and he is “glorying in his shame” (Phil 3:19). This isn’t fair to the people of New Hampshire. Their spiritual leader can’t control his own sin, how is he supposed to counsel others to control their sins?
Until he repents of homosexuality, Bishop Robinson should not be permitted to continue in ministry.
“Odder Stories” Accuses Me of Racism
How, as a Christian apologist, do I gauge how well I’m doing? By this verse:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (Jn 15:19, emphasis added)
I figure if the secular world hates what I have to say, then I must be doing a pretty darn good job. Conversely, if the Christian world loves me, then I must also be doing a pretty good job. From the comments that I receive, I see compliments from Christians (HT: Murphy Klasing and Wickle), and denigration from the world.
The most recent worldly accusation against me is to accuse me of 18th century racism for an old post on homosexuality. Unlike most Christians, I am allowing for the possibility that homosexuality may not be a choice. But along the same regard, neither is alcoholism or rage. Those things are genetic, too. Does anyone believe that they are good things, or are they things that we may struggle with but ultimately should eliminate for the good of all? Odder Stories says:
If you see echoes of 18th century racism, you’re not alone. In what sense is homosexuality like an addiction or anger issues? Why is it a ‘corrupting influence’? For one reason only: the Bible tells us that it is. It’s against ‘God’s plan’. We must ’surrender to God through Jesus Christ’, in the process attempting to deaden a major part of ourselves. As any honest advocate of this process will admit, this does not get rid of homosexuality, it merely teaches you to live with it by giving yourself over to what, at times, is indistinguishable from a cult.
He is absolutely correct in everything that he states. Christianity asks us to die to our former selves, of which homosexuality may be a part for some people. Like me having to die to my anger issues and other more serious addictions, the homosexual in service to the Lord must die to his homosexuality.
I freely admit that the only reason to argue against homosexuality is that the Bible says that it is a sin. There are no secular grounds whatsoever for arguing against it.
I feel that I’m an honest advocate of that position since I admit that the feelings never go away. There is not a day where I don’t struggle with my more serious addiction. Not a single day. But I’m struggling with it because I know God does not permit it, and I know that He will give me the strength to endure to the end. The homosexual can find that strength, too, if he or she looks to Jesus Christ.
Theodicy: God is Good
In an article entitled “Good God?“, atheist Peter Singer addresses some usual answers that Christians forward when faced with the question of why evil exists if God is good. His answers reveal much about the shallow reasoning that atheists display when pondering the tough questions. I will discuss his answers.
Singer starts by reasoning the following: “If God is all-knowing, he knows how much suffering there is. If he is all-powerful, he could have created a world without so much of it – and he would have done so if he were all good.” I agree with the first point. The next two points are asserted without evidence.
Perhaps God could have created a world without as much suffering. Perhaps not. But we fail to overlook what the Bible teaches: God created the through and for Christ–not for us. Therefore, the amount of human suffering is a completely irrelevant factor in determining the sort of world God would create. His criteria remain unrevealed to us.
To assert that “if” He was good He “would” have created a world with less suffering is ludicrous. As finite beings, we don’t know and cannot fathom all of the possibilities. With His criteria for actualizing possible worlds unrevealed, the burden of proof lies squarely on Singer to show why a world with less suffering is better than this one.
The first actual reply that Singer deals with is “. . . God bestowed on us the gift of free will, and hence is not responsible for the evil we do. But this reply fails to deal with the suffering of those who drown in floods, are burned alive in forest fires caused by lightning, or die of hunger or thirst during a drought.” He continues:
Christians sometimes attempt to explain this suffering by saying that all humans are sinners, and so deserve their fate, even if it is a horrible one. But infants and small children are just as likely to suffer and die in natural disasters as adults, and it seems impossible that they could deserve to suffer and die.
This is argument by outrage. God, who is all-knowing, knows what the fate of those children will be with or without a natural disaster. The burden of proof goes to Singer to show that being drown at an early age is a greater evil than whatever would have happened to that child in the future.
Further, the Bible makes no distinction between adults, infants, and children when it says that all have sinned (Rom 3:23). As humans, our very nature is sinful. This is important to remember when Singer goes on:
Once again, some Christians say that we have all inherited the original sin committed by Eve, who defied God’s decree against eating from the tree of knowledge. This is a triply repellent idea, for it implies that knowledge is bad, disobeying God’s will is the greatest sin of all, and children inherit the sins of their ancestors, and may justly be punished for them.
Even if were to accept all this, the problem remains unresolved. For animals also suffer from floods, fires, and droughts, and, since they are not descended from Adam and Eve, they cannot have inherited original sin.
First of all, it was Adam who sinned, not Eve. Second, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowing that once man knows of evil he will choose evil, God decreed that it was a sin to eat of that tree. It is not knowledge itself that is evil. All sin, at its root, is disobedience to God, so Singer is right in a sense to conclude that the greatest sin of all is disobedience. Finally, Romans 5 makes it clear that we do, indeed, inherit the sin of our father, Adam: “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).
Assuming that Singer accepts all of that, he still doesn’t see a solution to the problem because animals suffer too. He is still wrong–all creation is now under the curse of sin, animals included (Rom 8:20-23).
Singer, apparently unaware of that, philosophizes on animals for a couple of paragraphs. I’ll skip to the next section, where he says ” I debated the existence of God with the conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza. In recent months, D’Souza has made a point of debating prominent atheists, but he, too, struggled to find a convincing answer to the problem I outlined above.” He then continues:
He first said that, because humans can live forever in heaven, the suffering of this world is less important than it would be if our life in this world were the only life we had. That still fails to explain why an all-powerful and all-good god would permit it. Relatively insignificant as this suffering may be from the perspective of eternity, the world would be better without it, or at least without most of it. (Some say that we need to have some suffering to appreciate what it is like to be happy. Maybe, but we surely don’t need as much as we have.)
Again, I point out that this is mere assertion with no evidence. It is Singer’s responsibility to show, from all of the possible worlds God could have created, that another world would have been better because it contained less suffering and still met God’s criteria for His plan. Since the criteria is unrevealed in Scripture, I wish Singer the best of luck in proving just that point.
Next, D’Souza argued that since God gave us life, we are not in a position to complain if our life is not perfect. He used the example of a child born with one limb missing. If life itself is a gift, he said, we are not wronged by being given less than we might want. In response I pointed out that we condemn mothers who cause harm to their babies by using alcohol or cocaine when pregnant. Yet since they have given life to their children, it seems that, on D’Souza’s view, there is nothing wrong with what they have done.
The hole in Singer’s reasoning, of course, is that a mother doesn’t give life to her children in the same way as God gives life to a person. The Bible teaches that everything was created by Him and for Him, and in Him all things consist (Col 1:16-17). After birth, the child doesn’t absolutely require his mother, but all of creation requires God to hold together. It is a different situation all together.
Singer says, “Finally, D’Souza fell back, as many Christians do when pressed, on the claim that we should not expect to understand God’s reasons for creating the world as it is. . . . But once we abdicate our powers of reason in this way, we may as well believe anything at all.” Neither D’Souza nor I, nor any Christian, nor God Himself, would ever ask a person to abdicate his power of reason. D’Souza is actually incorrect in his statement. God chooses not to reveal His reasons. Perhaps we wouldn’t understand them, perhaps we would. But this isn’t a request to abdicate all reason, this is an appeal to have faith in Him. That He, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, knows better than we do.
Singer concludes “The evidence of our own eyes makes it more plausible to believe that the world was not created by any god at all. If, however, we insist on believing in divine creation, we are forced to admit that the God who made the world cannot be all-powerful and all good. He must be either evil or a bungler.” This conclusion presupposes that the evolutionary view of the evidence is correct and that how things are now are how they always were. Neither of these presuppositions are correct in a Biblical worldview.
Paul asserted that the evidence for divine creation is so plain that men are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20) for knowing that God exists. Why do atheists look at things differently? Because they have no foundation in Genesis–most believe that book is a piece of bad fiction. However, that book is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and must be literal history. If it isn’t, all of the Bible is a lie.
When God created the world, everything is not as it is now. It was all “very good,” as God states when he finishes with creation. The creation that we observe now is the creation that is under a curse, nothing in the world now is “very good.” As Paul stated, “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Rom 8:22, emphasis added). That is the result of the curse.
In all, Singer’s arguments show the usual bankruptcy that atheistic arguments usually show. These are easily answered by considering all of Scripture, especially the foundations in Genesis.
Reader Comment
In a comment posted here, a reader named Daniel F. writes:
I grew up in a devout very loving Christian family. I love my family, but the Christanity stuff fortunately did not stick. As I grew up, I noticed a lot of Christians were definite in their conviction, but confused on the details. I appreciate your courage in being open to sharing your thoughts. In today’s world, that definitely takes a lot of courage. And so… help me understand this.
How would we think of someone who decided to slaughter a larger portion of a class of preschoolers? That is, take a gun out and shoot execution style a portion of them? We would consider this person good? Should we praise this person and seek his approval?
Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would consider that outright evil. How would you feel if that story broke on the news? I hope really upset because it went against your moral fabric.
The problem with Christianity and other religions like Islam is that they very much promote moral corruption. You said, “God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself.” For what reason does God not choose everyone to draw to himself? Why would God create people only to torture them? By the way, who invented evil? If God is all powerful and created the universe, then He did. My dad says hell is the absence of God. Why define an absence? Why define evil?
In this context, is he no different than the murderous, evil human who slaughters the preschoolers?
I’ve e-mailed my response to Daniel, but I thought that I would make my response public since I think that it will help many of my readers who might not have had the courage to write in with the same problems or concerns. Read the rest of this entry
The Most Controversial Letter In TULIP
Read the entire article here.
When I first started studying Calvinism, I thought that the most controversial element of the TULIP was the “L”–Limited Atonement. This is summed up in the Westminster Confession of Faith III.6:
Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (emphasis added)
But I’ve found that everyone believes in the Limited Atonement, whether they think they do or not. A Universal Atonement is not just logically impossible, but outright cruel. Think about it like this: if Christ died in atonement for the sins of all of mankind, then why does God still send people to Hell? To what point and purpose must some people pay for their sins twice, once vicariously through Christ and then again for all eternity in Hell?
It makes no sense. Aside from that, only John 3:16 stands in support of a Universal Atonement. In nearly all other cases where the Atonement is mentioned in Scripture, the word “many” rather than “all” refers to those effectually called and saved. Looking back at the Old Testament, both Daniel and Isaiah confirm this idea of an elect people, or “the many” (cf. Dan 9:27 and Is 53:11-12) Scripture teaches, therefore, that only those who die in Christ are effectually saved by the Atonement. Even non-Calvinist writers agree on this point.
The most controversial element of Calvinism is the doctrine of predestination, which the Confession says “is to be handled with special prudence and care” (III.8). I found out why last night as I attempted to explain this doctrine to a friend over an Instant Message. He was aghast that I believed in this doctrine, since (in his opinion) it takes away free will.
First, before I delve into some of the finer points of the misunderstood doctrine of predestination, I must affirm that, to my surprise, Calvinism does teach that mankind has free will. I say “to my surprise” because I resisted Calvinism for so long for the sinful allure of open theism because of the question of free will. I made the mistake of checking what the critics said of Calvinism instead of looking at Calvinist authors like R.C. Sproul wrote on the subject. The Westminster Confession devotes an entire chapter to the free will of man.
In summary, the Confession states that God has placed a free will that is neither good nor evil within man. Pre-Fall, that will was good and pleasing to God, but mutable so that man could fall from his state of grace. Post-Fall, the will of man is dead in sin and unable to will and do any spiritual good. That means that man is unable to save himself apart from the drawing of the Father to Christ. Upon salvation, God regenerates the sinner and endows him with complete freedom to will and do spiritual good–but not perfectly, so he is still able to will and do evil.
Knowing that Calvinism affirmed the free will of man made it a lot easier for me to call myself a Calvinist, rather than just a reluctant Calvinist. While waiting in the long line for the most recent Harry Potter book, I had the incredible fortune to read portions of Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul, which helped me see that predestination is the ultimate expression of God’s love and grace, not the expression of tyranny that many critics of Calvinism make it out to be. Read the rest of this entry
Is Hell the Best Way to Evangelize?
I would have to say that talking to people about Hell is one of the worst ways to evangelize people. We live in a society that is very, very uncomfortable with the idea of judgment and even less comfortable with the idea of having to serve a sentence. The “sentence” in this case is eternity and the crime is living life the way that you always do (Rom 3:23).
Therefore, people have invented a comfortable reality for themselves where God doesn’t exist. For those that simply can’t fathom the universe without a creator, they have watered down the judgment aspect of God and favor only the loving aspects of God. To them, a God who would consign someone to Hell for eternity is cruel. Either way, the person who ascribes to these worldviews can live life the way they choose, since God either encourages and loves them as-is or doesn’t exist.
The problem is that God does exist, and as Creator and Lawgiver, has set forth certain rules and regulations for how we must live. Living any other way is rebellion, which is sin.
We often overlook the holiness of God. God is pure and holy, and cannot stand the sight of sin. Read the Law of Moses: the penalty for even minor sins is death. Paul echoes the sentiment that sin equals death in his letter to the Romans (6:23a). The message is clear–God cannot be near sin, and cannot simply overlook sin. Fortunately, as the rest of the passage in Romans 6:23 states, “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
By placing our faith in Christ, we need not fear the holy judgment of God. But that God judges at all seems to make many people uncomfortable, to the point of physical illness. Here is a story that I found on Atheist Revolution from a reader named Angela:
My family recently moved to a rural community near Tulsa, OK. My 11 year old daughter previously lived in Morocco for seven years with her loving, muslim relatives. Everything was going very well at her new school until a couple of weeks ago. During recess, her two very, sweet friends tried to save her soul. They informed her that the “rapture” was coming in five years and everyone that wasn’t a christian were going to hell.
My daughter came home from school in tears, telling me she was afraid her family in Morocco were all going to hell. She became violently ill and spent two days in bed without eating or drinking. I took her to a local Unitarian church in Tulsa last Sunday hoping to surround her with some open minded people. She loved it. In fact, there was a female speaker from the local Islam society explaining her religion to the congregation.
We will be attending every Sunday because she loved it so much. My problem is that I don’t. The people were very sweet but the chairs in the worship room were uncomfortable and I can’t stand the boring hymns everyone sang.
I believe in evolution and really feel uncomfortable in the belief of an all-knowing God. She wants to go to church so she can be “normal” like everyone else. We’re stuck between church and social rejection.
Pay attention to the boldfaced portions of this letter; I believe that it shows the real problem that the author has with Hell–God’s judgment. That thought terrifies her to her very core.
But it need not terrify anyone. This judgment is reserved only for the folks that do not place their faith in Christ, as John 3:17 states: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
If you are like this girl, and spend two days in bed without food or water because you believe that you’re going to Hell, repent and place your faith in Jesus. That would be the first step. The next step is to get your hands on a Bible (BibleGateway has several versions online for free; E-sword is the best free Bible study software around) and study it. Join a Bible study group; there is very likely one at your local church. Speaking of church, you should attend one regularly. Find one that you feel comfortable at.
Since placing my faith in Jesus, I have never looked back nor regretted the decision. My only desire is to serve Him better and to lift myself up as a Christian example to all. I fall far short of where I want to be, but I work hard each day to make my life my witness to Him. I firmly believe that giving your life to God will be the greatest thing that you can ever do, and the best decision you can make.
Hell isn’t the best way to evangelize. In fact, I think that mentioning it in evangelism is just counterproductive. I think that the best way to evangelize is to live a life that is exemplary of Christ. In other words, as St. Francis of Assisi put it: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”
Why Do I Follow Tribal Codes from 1400 B.C.?
The lovely Elizabeth Schmitz has challenged me yet again:
[Y]ou write, “What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.” I will grant you that. If contextualism is such a concern of yours, perhaps you would refrain from taking the ancient/tribal mores and applying them to modern life… (source)
The issue here is the relevance of social mores that were written between 1450 and 1410 b.c. by Moses, who would have never had so much as a glimpse of modern life. Therefore, why would what he wrote for a group of people, wandering in the desert, be relevant to someone living, stationary, in the Midwestern United States in a.d. 2007?
In many ways, I admit what my critics assert. Tribal codes, as Elizabeth calls them, written between 1450 and 1410 b.c. have no relevance to modern life. So I would contend that I don’t follow them. I follow a higher moral standard that we all know exists, but cannot achieve regardless of how mightily we try. It is all there in our hearts. The Bible does back me up on this:
- “I delight to do your will, O God; your law is within my heart” (Ps 40:8).
- “Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings” (Is 51:7)
- “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:33).
The last of these verses is actually a prophecy. God is stating that He will write His law on the hearts of His people, the elect discussed in the New Testament, so that we will know it instinctively. This way, we will be His people. As one of the elect, I know God’s law instinctively, for the day Jeremiah spoke of has come to pass, the law was fulfilled in Jesus (Mat 5:17).
As a side note, so that I don’t seem to sound so high and mighty, I claim to follow a higher moral standard. I believe that it was God who wrote it on my heart, so that I could be His and He could be my God. I do not, however, claim to ever hit the mark set by this moral standard. I fail in my walk every day. Each day, I also ask God for forgiveness, and try to make amends where I can to the people I hurt.
So that no one can say that the verses in Jeremiah don’t apply to me since I am a Gentile by birth, let me put a few verses out there. First, Romans 4:9-12:
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
This means that all who believe are the descendants of Abraham, not just the physical descendants of Abraham. The apostle continues:
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:16-22)
Finally, Paul wrote this to the Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The distinctions have passed away under the New Covenant, what once applied to the Jews now applies to the Gentiles.
The moral code is written not just in the Bible, but on our hearts. The trouble is, no one recognizes it or follows it (Rom 3:23). This is the first of the five-part Reformed TULIP doctrine: Total depravity. Mankind is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 