Truth Standsin a world of doubt

Doctrinal Statement and Philosophy of Ministry

2011-05-24T22:51:00.000-07:00

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2a).

When we hold the Bible in our hands, we are holding God's revelation through the prophets (Moses through Malachi), through His Son (the Gospels), and through His apostles and prophets (Acts through Revelation). Every word in Scripture is a word from God. All of it is important. All of it.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While there are many passages of Scripture that mystify modern readers, that does not negate God's proclamation that all Scripture is profitable.

It is all intended to be understood and applied. God created man in His image and gave us His Word to understand who God is and who we are. God instituted the Church, and gave us His Word so that we would know "how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

On that basis, and standing on the shoulders of faithful men who have gone before me, I have a doctrinal statement and philosophy of ministry which express what I believe Scripture teaches on key doctrines, and what I believe Scripture commands regarding how ministry ought to be conducted.

These documents are not infallible, and should be upheld only to the degree to which they align with Scripture. These documents do not express an exclusive orthodoxy, which means that one could disagree with significant portions and still be a brother in Christ. These documents are simply a systematized understanding of what I believe Scripture teaches, and is the perspective from which I preach.

They are long, in part, because I am a practical inerrantist which means that not only do I hold to orthodox doctrine of God's Word is free from error in all its claims, but I also live out that doctrine by basing my life and ministry on God's Word as the sufficient authority. Trust me, they could be much longer.

Doctrinal Statement

Philosophy of Ministry

Senior Testimony

2011-04-07T11:26:00.001-07:00

Well, I started this blog in hopes of using it as an outlet for what I was learning over the last four years of seminary. It happened a little bit, but other things took priority. Nevertheless here I am on the brink of graduation. This morning I gave my senior testimony in chapel. It was both rewarding and frustrating. Rewarding because I was able to express my gratefulness to the Lord. Frustrating because I was limited to five minutes and could only say an ounce of what was in my heart. In order to honor my classmates and leaders, I transcripted my testimony in order to keep to my alloted time. So here it is:

Good morning, my name is Gabriel Powell. To stand before you today is a very surreal experience, and I’m hoping once I step away from this pulpit I won’t wake up realizing I’m late for class—like I did my first day of seminary.

I was born in Argentina while my dad was a missionary pastor sent from Grace. When I was three we moved back here and I attended Grace Community School from preschool to second grade. We then moved to Bellingham, WA where I grew up. For many years I was self-deceived about my spiritual state and thought I was saved, but it wasn’t until Junior High at a Bible camp that I realized I was on the path to hell. So I repented of my sin and submitted my life to Christ.

A couple years later I was serving on the student leadership team in our youth group, and the Lord began to light the kindling of my soul for ministry. In God’s providence I attended The Master’s College—where I met my wife—and got a degree in Computer Science. After graduation and marriage, we planned to work for about 10 years before pursuing seminary. But just over a year into that plan the Lord brought a TMS grad to work at Logos Bible Software, where I worked. He dangled the carrot of seminary in front of me and rather easily convinced me to apply right away.

Our original 10 year postponement plan was based purely on financial concerns. Through the selling of the home, my job at Grace to You, and the support of family and strangers, the Lord took care of those concerns. If you’re waiting, like I was, to have all your ducks in a row before starting seminary, know that God wrote the book on duck organizing.

If you’re wondering how I chose to attend The Master’s Seminary as opposed to going somewhere else, let me just say this: there was no other choice. And after four years of being here, the saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance: there is still no other choice.

The greatest lesson I learned during seminary would have to be this: the gospel. Early on in seminary my heart was drawn to Colossians 2:13-14, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” For nearly four years this text has raptured my heart. Through this text the Lord has deepened by understanding of the depravity of my own soul—both before and after conversion. Through this text the Lord has deepened my understanding of regeneration—what it means to be made alive with Christ. Through this text the Lord has deepened my understanding of forgiveness and its implications. And through this text the Lord has deepened my understanding of the cross. My time in seminary and Grace Church has given me a deep love and affection for the gospel.

The second greatest passion the Lord has providentially worked into my heart is biblical counseling. For over a year I’ve had the privilege of serving as a counselor in the counseling department at the college. That experience has deepened my confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture, the power of God, and the joy—and yes, sometimes heartache—of shepherding. Men, people don’t need your pithy advice. They need God’s Word. A woman called me once, and through her tears she said, “I’m pregnant, but I don’t want to tell my husband because I don’t know how he will react.” In that moment, I got angry. Not at her or her husband. But at their pastors who effectively refused to shepherd them. Don’t be one of those pastors who are too busy running programs that you can’t shepherd the people. I thank God that He has given me the opportunity to learn at an institution which has as its motto, “We train men as if lives depended on it.” Within the providence and sovereignty of God, lives do depend on it.

Finally, I would be a fool if I did not express publically my unsurpassing gratefulness to the Lord for my wife and children. My wife has put up with a lot the last four years. She has done so with grace, patience, and support. My children also have been remarkably understanding and patient. God has been too good to me.

As for future plans, I’m candidating for the pastoral position at Sudden Valley Community Church in Bellingham, WA. If the Lord doesn’t open that door we’re content to continue the Master of Biblical Counseling program, which I’ve already started, until such a time as the Lord sees fit to entrust me with full time ministry.

Repentance vs. Penance

2010-10-28T14:37:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Ask most people to identify the distinction between repentance and penance, and you’ll most likely hear an answer that resembles an entry in the thesaurus. We live in an “I’m sorry” culture which has lost most vestiges of the concept of forgiveness. Parents teach their children to say “I’m sorry” regardless of whether or not they mean it. We have grown up with that practice thinking a simple “I’m sorry” resolves problems, restores relationships, and allows one to move on. Apologies are one step up from this practice. The term apology technically means to give a defense, and yet over time it has become another—perhaps more formal—way of saying “I’m sorry.” The reality is most apologies are a defense of one’s actions since they typically follow this format: “I apologize, but…” The response to both these expressions is often an obligatory “It’s OK” as if to excuse and minimize the wrong doing. Sometimes the perpetrator may offer some form of restitution, payment, or indebtedness (in the form of favors). These offers can be appropriately restorative or resemble a form of penance which serves only to buy the acceptance of the perpetrated.

These terms and the attitudes that often lie behind them are in contrast to the biblical model of dealing with sin and restoring relationships. It is expected that the unbelieving world would have its own standard for relationships, but it is a mark upon the Church that the biblical model has been overshadowed. What is equally discouraging is when some in the Church attempt to redefine the biblical model to accommodate theological strongholds. This has been the case in the Free Grace community where repentance has been modified to include multiple meanings with a particular de-emphasis on its relationship to sin.[1] Of course the Roman Catholic tradition in times past morphed biblical repentance into penance which, due to the influence of Catholicism, has done nothing but confuse many people as to the biblical process of repentance.

This essay will clear the air by biblically defining repentance and contrasting it with penance. It will be shown that biblical repentance is a change of action which begins with a change of heart regarding one’s sin. It is recognition of one thought or action as sin and therefore turning in mind and action from it toward God. Before focusing on repentance, it is necessary to understand penance as it is defined and practiced.

Penance

Penance can be simply defined as payment for an offense. This payment can come in the form of self-abasement or mortification, or other acts that serve as payment. The US Judicial system has adopted a form of penance when it requires some criminals to perform hours of community service. Jail is a form of punishment while community service is more a form of paying back the community. Religiously, penance grew out of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as a method of earning forgiveness. In 1439 Counsel Florence defined penance as having three parts: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Satisfaction is often achieved by “prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.”[2] However it is important to understand the ultimately the priest subjectively determines the appropriate deeds required for satisfaction.

Penance, along with purgatory, is a means of paying for one’s sins which highlights the RCC’s denial of the sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross. According to the practice of the RCC, the punishment of Christ on the cross did not result in the forgiveness of sins for those who would believe. Instead, the Christian maintains a grace tank. At birth or conversion, the tank is filled with grace and forgiveness for past sins. As one moves on the road of life with its accompanying sins the grace tank needs to be refilled which is accomplished through the various sacraments of which penance is the most repeated. Purgatory is the final rest stop in which one remains until all previously unforgiven sins are paid for. Penance, then, far from being a synonym for repentance, is rather a synonym for payment.

Repentance

Now that penance is properly understood, we can give attention to the biblical model of repentance. The focus of this paper is on repentance in the life of a believer and therefore one of the presuppositions is the biblical understanding of the atonement. The doctrine of the atonement teaches us that all sin, past, present, and future, were paid for in full and forgiven at the cross (Colossians 2:13). Therefore repentance in no way seeks the forgiveness of those sins by God. Rather, the purpose of repentance is reconciliation. Reconciliation is necessary because sin separates. Sin has been simply defined as a lack of conformity to the law of God.[3] Not conforming to God’s law is rejection of that law and rejecting God as the giver of that law. Repentance is then the means by which the sinning believer turns from that rejection and is united to God and his law again. But what is the substance of repentance? What does it look like?

Repentance in the Old Testament

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the most common word for repent isשׁוב (šûb). This is not a technical term for repent, but instead is a common term used over 1,000 times in the Old Testament with a variety of meanings within a limited semantic domain. Its most fundamental meaning that stretches the entire semantic domain is to change. From the qal stem to the hophal stem the meanings include: to turn back, return, repent, abandon, bring back, lead away, reverse, and restore.[4] The precise meaning, as with many Hebrew words, depends on the context.

The dedication of the temple serves as a classic example of a diversity of meanings. Near the end of his dedicatory prayer in 1 Kings 8:46-53, Solomon gives a hypothetical situation pleading for God to respond graciously if Israel acts according to the cycle of sin and repentance they have in the past. In this situation Solomon says “if they turn [שׁוב] their heart… and repent [שׁוב]” (vs. 47) and “if they repent [שׁוב] with all their mind and with all their heart” (vs. 48). The first reference has the heart as its object. The other two contextually refer back to their sin against God (there is no other possible reference). In this passage repentance is a turning away from sin which is at the same time a turning toward God. This same speech is given in 2 Chronicles 6:36-40 with the same terminology.

Psalm 78:32-34 demonstrates this dynamic by speaking of the Ephraimites who continually rebelled against God despite his pouring out of judgment. Though short-lived, verse 34 speaks of their repentance, “When he killed them, they sought him; they repented and sought him earnestly.” It is clear in this context that repentance refers to ceasing or turning away from their sin and rebellion against God and turning to seek him.

The prophet Jeremiah uses שׁוב in a double sense of both turn from sin to God and then turning again from God to sin. In Jeremiah 34 the prophet brought a word from Yahweh to King Zedekiah after they had set free the Hebrew slaves according to the law of Jubilee, but then sinfully took their slaves back. Yahweh said to them through Jeremiah, “You recently repented [שׁוב] and did what was right in my eyes… but then you turned around [שׁוב] and profaned my name…” (vs. 15-16). This text demonstrates the non-technical nature of the שׁוב as a word which in this context simply means to stop doing one thing and start doing the opposite.

One final Old Testament example will demonstrate explicitly what repentance looks like. In the days of the prophet of Ezekiel the elders of Israel had “taken idols into their hearts” (Ezekiel 14:3), yet they came to be consulted by Yahweh through Ezekiel. Yahweh responded to them in this way, “Repent [שׁוב] and turn away [שׁוב] from your idols, and turn away [שׁוב] your faces from all your abominations” (Ezekiel 14:6). A paraphrase of this might be, “Repent! What I mean by that is turn from your idols to serve me and turn from your abominations to obey my laws.”

These passages demonstrate that when שׁוב is used in the context of sinful behavior it means to turn away from sin toward obedience to Yahweh.

Repentance in the New Testament

In the Greek New Testament the verb μετανοέω (metanoeō) with its nominal cognate μετάνοια (metanoeō) are the terms translated repent or repentance. There are several contexts where the terms are used in a technical sense with no apparent reference to repentance (e.g. John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ preaching “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17). Therefore it is necessary to focus on those texts which have a reference point to understand the biblical use of μετανοέω.[5]

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus “began to denounce the cities… because they did not repent [μετανοέω].” We are not told explicitly why these cities (Chorazin and Bethsaida) needed repentance, but Jesus does compare them with Tyre and Sidon who would have repented had they seen the work of Christ (v. 21). If we understood the would-be repentance of Tyre and Sidon, we can then establish what Jesus condemned Chorazin and Bethsaida for not doing. Tyre and Sidon were Gentile seaport cities that were condemned by God for their wretchedness in every area of life as well as for capturing and selling Israelites into slavery (Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26-28; Joel 3:4; Amos 1:9-10). The judgment on these cities was on the basis of their utter sinfulness. So when Jesus says “they would have repented [μετανοέω] long ago,” he can only mean that they would have turned from their sin. Therefore the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida were being condemned by Jesus not just because they did not accept Jesus as the Son of God (though certainly that is included), but the focal point is that they did not turn from their sinfulness.

Luke 13:1-5 records a scene where Jesus was speaking and dialoging with the crowds. Some asked him about the Galileans who were killed by Pilate as they were sacrificing in the temple. The exact question is not given, but Jesus’ response tells us the question had to do with whether those Galileans died that way because they were worse sinners. Jesus responds by saying, “No, I tell you, but unless you repent [μετανοέω], you will all likewise perish” (v. 3). Repentance here points back to someone who is a sinner. There are various interpretations as to the actions to be repented of (e.g. political rebellion, sin against God, etc.), but the common thread is turning away from their sin.

Near the end of Paul’s second letter (that we have) to the Corinthians he writes, “I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented [μετανοέω] of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced” (2 Corinthians 12:21). Paul is clear that he is fearful that some have not turned away from their sin. The Corinthians have received more than enough rebuke from Paul with particular emphasis on sexual sins, and yet it is possible that some have not turned away from it.

Thus far repentance has been defined as turning away from sin and toward God. There is a danger, though, in defining it as such. It is quite possible for someone to turn away from sin without any internal change of heart and mind. The adulterer could cease the affair to conform to his wife’s demands all the while having no change in his heart. Remember that sin is a rejection of God’s law which causes one’s standard to usurp God’s standard. Therefore all sins of action are first a sin of the mind. It is, as Jesus put it, “out of the abundance of the heart [that] the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). This is why Jesus stated in Matthew 5 that lust is adultery and hate is murder. While there may be sins of ignorance, there are no unwilling sins. A person sins because it is their heart’s desire (James 1:14-15). Therefore any genuine repentance must begin in the mind.

Luke records for us a moment where Jesus gave his disciples a lesson on forgiveness. In Luke 17:3-4 Jesus says, “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” This simple but very difficult lesson causes the disciples to react with consternation saying, “Increase our faith!” (v. 5). Increase our faith indeed! What exactly is Jesus telling us to do? Should we constantly forgive malicious and abusive people? How do we know if the person is sincere since less than a day has passed? Is sincerity even necessary part of repentance? The context helps answer some of those questions which in turn will demonstrate that Jesus believes that repentance begins in the mind.

Some commentators bifurcate verses 1-2 and 3-4 as completely distinct sections with no unity.[6] Careful consideration shows a clear relationship between the two. The thematic focus of verses 1-2 is on the sin tempter. The thematic focus of verses 3-4 is on the sin victim. It is not necessary that the sinner be the same in both cases but in neither case is the sinner portrayed as overtly malicious. The sinner is a Christian (“little one” in verse two and “brother” in verse three) who could be described in terms of Romans 7—“For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep doing” (Romans 7:19). Inasmuch as the sin is not indicated as malicious neither is it necessarily singular. Jesus does not specify that it is the same sin committed seven times, but rather leaves it open to one or more sins multiple times in the day. One should not conclude definitively, then, that the repeated repentance is over the same sin which would be no repentance at all. Two of the questions above have thus been answered, namely, Jesus is not speaking of a repeatedly malicious perpetrator, nor is he teaching that we should forgive false repentance. The sinner to be forgiven is a brother who sins against another multiple times in the day and realizes through rebuke or conviction that he has sinned and seeks forgiveness. Therefore repentance, according to Jesus in this scenario, is a change of mind where one recognizes and confesses one’s sin and seeks forgiveness from the offended. The validity of such repentance must be borne out in time as one progressively grows in their resistance to temptation.

One final example demonstrates how repentance begins in the mind. Acts 8:9-24 records how Simon the magician witnessed Peter and John and desired the power to bestow the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands. After offering them money for such a gift Peter responded harshly calling him to repent saying, “Repent, therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you” (v. 22). The text gives no clear malicious intent Simon had for this request, but perhaps Peter knew through the Holy Spirit what was in his heart. Whatever the case it is clear that as far as Peter was concerned the sin to be repented of was not the offer of money, but the heart’s desire behind the offer. Therefore the repentance Peter exhorted was not of the action only, but of the intention of the heart. For Simon to be truly repentant he had to change his mind with regard to his desires which immediately led to a change in behavior.

Conclusion

After considering the biblical concept of repentance it is clear that penance and repentance are distinct and separate concepts. Penance is an extra-biblical and contra-biblical doctrine while repentance is taught throughout Scripture. Penance obscures the atonement while repentance lives under the shadow of the cross. Penance seeks to earn forgiveness from God while repentance seeks unearned forgiveness from the offended. Penance requires contrition (feeling bad), confession, and satisfaction while repentance requires a complete change of heart, confession, resulting in change of action. Penance lessens one’s time in purgatory while repentance increases one’s sanctification.

In the final analysis true genuine repentance has occurred when a believer has changed his mind and recognized his sin. She has gone from glorifying self to glorifying God. He has replaced his standard for God’s standard. This is not merely feeling bad—which is remorse—but a deep and effective change in one’s thinking whereby one’s actions consistently demonstrate an internal change.

[1] Chris Jenkins responds to Robert Wilkin’s redefinition of repentance in “What is Repentance? Settling the Debate.” Journal of Modern Ministry 5, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 7-19.

[2] As quoted by Paul Enns. The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997): 535.

[3] Charles Hodge. Systematic Theology. Electronic edition. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 2:187. Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1254. Augustus Strong. Systematic Theology. Electronic edition. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004): 549.

[4] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Volumes 1-4 Combined in One Electronic Edition., electronic ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999, c1994-1996), 1429-1434.

[5] Jenkins rightly points to the critical flaw in Wilkin’s method of defining μετανοέω by pointing out that Wilkin uses only classical Greek texts (non-biblical) to define the word and applies that meaning to Scripture.

[6] Darrell Bock. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 9:51-24:53. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 1380. John Nolland. Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 9:21-18:34. (Dallas: Word, Inc., 2002), 837.

Jesus in the Life of a Christian

2010-03-07T19:25:00.001-08:00

What follows is Paul’s teaching Jesus in Ephesians. Every direct reference (excluding pronouns) is included.

Jesus did not merely secure salvation and then leave us alone; he continues to be the center of life. Paul is an apostle of Jesus and the recipients are faithful in Jesus (1:1). It is from Jesus and the Father that we receive grace, peace, and blessings (1:2-3). We have been adopted through Jesus (1:5) according to the plan made beforehand in Jesus (1:9). It is in Jesus that we put our hope and faith (1:12, 15). From Jesus’ Father we receive wisdom and revelation (1:17), whose power also raised Jesus from the dead (1:20) as it also raised us up with Christ (2:5). Our union with Jesus places us in heaven (2:6), and it is through Jesus that God expressed his kindness toward us (2:7). Though we are now created in Jesus (2:10) we were once separate from him (2:12), but because of his blood we have been brought near (2:13). Jesus is the cornerstone, the master of us all (2:20; 3:1). What we know of Jesus now was once a mystery (3:4), but we now know that in Jesus the promises of God are for Jews and Gentiles (3:6). This mystery of Jesus revealed is beyond comprehension (3:8), but nevertheless is manifested in the person of Jesus (3:11). Jesus not only dwells in heaven as our advocate, he dwells in our hearts (3:17). We must know Jesus’ love which surpasses knowledge (3:19) and give his glory for it (3:21). Jesus gave gifts to the church (4:7) for the building up of the body (4:12) to the end that the body would measure up to Jesus himself (4:13, 15). We must live in accordance with what we have learned about Jesus knowing that in him is truth (4:20, 21). We must live lives of forgiveness and love because Jesus has forgiven us and loved us (4:32; 5:2). The sinner has no inheritance in Jesus’ kingdom (5:5), and those who are made alive will have the light of Christ shone on them (5:14). Our thanksgiving ought to be in the name of Jesus (5:20) and our submission to one another out of reverence for Jesus (5:21). Husbands must model Jesus in their headship (5:23), and wives must likewise submit in the same manner as the church does to Jesus (5:24). Husbands must love their wives as Christ does the church (5:25), likewise nourishing and cherishing them (5:29). Marriage is a reflection of Jesus and the church (5:32). Slaves must work for their masters as they would for Jesus (6:5) knowing that they are indeed slaves of Jesus (5:6). Jesus and the Father give peace and love to those who love him (6:23-24).

In light of all this that Paul has said in Ephesians, it is no wonder that in Colossians 3:4 he also says, “When Christ who is your life…” and likewise in Philippians 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.”

Pastor or Entertainer with a Message?

2009-12-19T15:31:00.001-08:00

There are some pastors who error in that they speak as comedians with a message. Some error in that they are not comedians, but they don’t have a message either. There are some who preach the God’s Word, but do so through entertainment. There are some who preach seriously, but they’re not preaching God’s Word.

It is hard to criticize a pastor who preaches a passage, explaining the text accurately and with good explanation, but does it in such a way that is missing the gravitas of the passage. On the one hand it is refreshing because hearing anyone who gives an accurate treatment of the text is good. On the other hand it is annoying because the constant jokes make it difficult to think seriously throughout the sermon. It’s hard because it is fun to listen to a speaker who makes you chuckle and laugh.

Despite the reality that it is enjoyable to listen to this kind of preaching, I would never want this kind of speaker to be my long-term pastor for the following reasons:

1. I wonder if this person can be serious about anything for any length of time. How will they act in a funeral service? Will they make a joke when my spouse is in the hospital? Do they understand that there is a time for laughter and a time for weeping?

2. The Bible is not a book of jokes, nor do the truths it contains give way to laughter. Life can be funny and light-hearted, and laughter is good in its rightful place, but studying Scripture is not the time to make weighty matters light. Sermons should convict sinners, edify believers, challenge the soul, encourage the weak, break the strong. It shouldn’t make anyone jovial.

3. A sermon filled with modern illustrations and funny examples is out of necessity not filled with biblical illustrations or historical background. At the end of the sermon you might understand the truth, but you won’t understand the text—and there is a significant difference.

4. Pastors who are entertaining to listen to, no matter how correct their message, are reliant upon their personality and not the truth. People flock to them because they enjoy listening to the speaker, not because they love the truth he speaks. The fact that he speaks the truth legitimates their flocking to him, but it doesn’t cause it.

5. One of the important goals of good preaching is to teach by example how to study the Bible. An entertaining sermon week after week after week cannot achieve this goal.

The Gospel

2009-12-17T14:58:00.000-08:00

God has revealed Himself in the Bible as the Creator. The Bible starts with the words, “In the beginning God” (Genesis 1:1). The Bible makes no attempt to prove God’s existence but rather focuses on God as Creator of all things. The New Testament tells us that God not only created everything, but it was created for him (Colossians 1:16). That is to say that God created the universe for himself—for his glory. He did not create because he lacked something or needed anything (Acts 17:25), but rather in order that he would receive the glory that he deserves (Ephesians 1). Because God created everything, he also owns everything. As Creator he has the deed to the universe and can do with it what he wills (Psalm 24:1). God is under no obligation to operate on the opinions of others, especially finite created humans.

Among the many attributes that the Bible uses to describe God, the most unique trait that God embodies is holiness. Holiness means uniqueness, separation, distinction. On multiple occasions the Bible describes heavenly scenes in which angels surround the throne proclaiming God’s holiness (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). God is holy, unique, and distinct from his creation because he is perfect and lacking in nothing. He is perfectly righteous, just, loving, and merciful. He is perfect in wrath, goodness, graciousness, power. There is no evil in him because he is the standard of good. There is no sense in which he is imperfect or unable to accomplish his will. There is no lack of perfection.

As Creator and Owner, the most holy God requires perfect obedience to his law. If we want to have a relationship with him, we have to be perfect according to his standard. In other words, nothing less than absolute perfection is acceptable to Him. It is not enough to be 51% good. It is not enough to have a super majority of goodness. It is not enough be 99% good. God says that we could live a perfectly righteous life, yet if we failed at one point we might as well have broken the whole law (James 2:10).

This situation poses a serious problem because the Bible also says that everyone is a sinner. There is no perfect person that has ever lived. We understand sin pretty easily; sin is just not meeting God’s standard. Since God’s standard includes things like obeying governments, every time we speed on the highway we are in a real sense breaking God’s law. But we also sin when we don’t do things. For example, we sin when we don’t acknowledge God for who He is. We sin when we think of God flippantly and we sin when we misrepresent God. We sin when we act wickedly and we sin when we think we’re acting good. The Bible says that even our righteous deeds are offensive to God because we think that somehow the little good that we do will bring us favor from God and outweigh the wickedness in our hearts. We sin when we fail to acknowledge God and we sin when we replace God with our own gods of money, sex, power, and pleasure. There are millions of ways that we all sin on a daily basis. The main point is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

God is also perfectly just, therefore, He cannot let sin go unpunished, and He has declared that the penalty for sin is eternal death. Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Not only do we deserve to die physically, but we are already dead spiritually because of sin (Ephesians 2:1). We have sinned against an infinite God and we must pay an infinite penalty. It may not make sense that what we would consider to be a minor act lying would deserve death. But we understand that under the right circumstances a slap on the face can land one in a federal prison. The issue is not the act itself, but the one against whom the act is perpetrated. Punching a spouse has its consequences, but punching the President of the United States had severe consequences. In the same way when we break God’s law, we are sinning against an infinite being and therefore that act requires infinite consequences.

Unlike every other religion in the world there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. There is no finite righteous deed that can overcome infinite punishment. Every attempt we make to please God on our own is actually an offense to God because we think that somehow by doing good deeds here and there we can make up for our sins against the infinite God. On our own we cannot please God, or do anything that gets us anywhere near heaven (Romans 8:7-8).

Of course, God knows that we can do nothing. So He did something. While as Creator and Owner he could have chosen to destroy this world and start over, he didn’t. He decided to put himself on display by making known his own character that could not be known any other way. By choosing to save and redeem part of humanity he puts on display his grace and mercy. By allowing another part of humanity to suffer the consequences of their sin he puts on display his perfect justice. In everything God does he displays his own perfection. So what did he do? He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth as both God and sinless man. Jesus lived a perfect life even though He was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus proved he was God by fulfilling hundreds of prophecies, many of which he could not orchestrate (like the place of his birth); he performed many miracles and proved his power of sickness and disease, the weather, knowledge of men’s thoughts and hearts. The reason the religious leaders of the time hated him was exactly because Jesus claimed to be God in what he said and taught.

After living a perfect life, he demonstrated God’s love by dying for us and paying the penalty for sin. Because he was perfect he did not have to pay for his own sin, therefore he could pay for another’s sin. And because he is God he could pay for an infinite number of sins, not just one person’s sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21 tells us that God “made him [Jesus], who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” And just to be clear, Jesus didn’t pay for sin because of what the Romans did to Him. When Jesus was on the cross, God the Father poured out His wrath on Jesus thereby satisfying the just and eternal penalty for our sin.

But as we remember every time we celebrate Easter, Jesus didn’t stay dead. He rose again on the third day and accomplished victory over sin and death (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Sin and death no longer held power over Him, and they do not hold power over those who believe in Him. His resurrection clinched the victory that He came to accomplish.

Let me summarize what I’ve said so far. The Creator God is perfect and requires perfection. Man is not perfect, must pay the penalty for sin, and there is nothing he or she can do about it. Jesus came living a perfect life, died on the cross, and rose from the dead thereby paying the debt that man owed God.

Now, because of what Jesus accomplished, he offers eternal life to everyone who believes in him. You’re probably familiar with John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” God has made it possible for us to live forever with him. What we could not do, God did by sending Jesus to die in our place (Romans 8:3).

What does He require of us? To repent and believe. Repentance simply means turning away from sin, and turning toward God. It means not living the way we want to, but living the way he wants us to (Isaiah 55:7). So we must repent. And we must also believe. Romans 10:9 says, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.” We must believe the good news that the Bible teaches. Put another way, we must believe in Jesus and submit our lives to him.

What happens when we believe? A great exchange occurs. God takes away all the sin we have committed in the past, and will commit in the future, and replaces it with all the righteousness of Christ. Think of it this way: God treated Jesus Christ on the cross as if he lived our life, and when we believe in Christ, God then treats us as if we lived Jesus’ perfect life. Perhaps you have heard the definition of justification “just as if I’d never sinned.” That is true as far as it goes, but justification is so much more than that. It starts with being declared innocent of all charges of sin, and moves forward to declare us perfectly righteous. In accounting terms, not only are we no longer in debt having a zero balance, now we have infinite resources in our account. This is the great exchange: our sin for Christ’s righteousness. This is why Paul could write, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).

Even though God freely grants forgiveness, it doesn’t mean it isn’t costly. As some have said, it is free, but it will cost you everything. It is costly because we go from being our own master to having Jesus be our Master. We give up living independently from God and surrender ourselves to him becoming dependent on him. Don’t think that you can believe in Jesus and your life can continue on as it always has. Perhaps many things will stay the same, perhaps not. The point is you must be willing to let him change everything if he wants to. So consider the cost (Luke 14:25-33). But also remember that being reconciled to God far outweighs the cost. What we have given up, we give up freely because we love God and he has been so kind and gracious to us. It is costly, but it is like selling everything to buy something one thing that is more valuable than everything put together.

Understanding Anger

2009-10-26T21:39:00.001-07:00

Anger is universal. It is not limited to human beings but is expressed by the devil and his demons and most supremely by God. It is not merely an emotion, nor is it merely an action. Anger is not entirely positive, nor is it entirely negative. What exactly is anger and how should we evaluate it? David Powlison has written a helpful article dealing with anger in the biblical context and how Christians can understand it with precision and clarity.

The article is structured around the following five points: 1) The Bible is about anger, 2) Anger is something you do, 3) Anger is natural, 4) Anger is learned, and 5) Anger is a moral matter. Points three and four seem contradictory but the thrust of the fourth point is such that it should read “Anger Expression is Learned.” Following the fifth point the article ends with seven tests one can use to evaluate anger.

When one hears the statement “the Bible is about anger” perhaps the popular sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” comes to mind. Or perhaps one would contradict stating that the Bible is about grace; or it is about Jesus. Powlison makes the case that grace cannot be understood without anger, and Jesus’ incarnation would not have occurred if not for anger. From the moment of the fall, God’s anger toward sin has been the backdrop of all the positive elements of Scripture. Would grace be grace if God was not angry? Why would the Son die on the cross if God wasn’t angry? What is the motivation toward holiness if sin doesn’t have a consequence? Satan’s very existence is defined by anger as is known as the destroyer, murderer, and the father of lies. If God—the Holy One—can express anger, and Satan—the destroyer—can express anger, what does that indicate? It clearly indicates that anger has both positive and negative elements. It can be entirely good and entirely evil, though not at the same time. God’s anger is productive while Satan’s anger is destructive. God’s anger at sin was expressed by paying the penalty for sin on the cross resulting in justification. God’s anger at sin is continually expressed by disarming sin’s control of the believer through sanctification. God’s anger at sin will be expressed by finally eradicating it in glorification. Therefore the gracious loving acts of God are at the same time expressions of anger toward sin.

Contrasting God’s productive anger is Satan’s destructive anger. Though we know that Satan’s pride caused his fall did not anger precede pride? Satan must have been angry over his lower-than-divine position in order to desire a higher one. His anger was again expressed by deceiving Eve into rejecting God’s command. In the New Testament his anger came full force in bringing Jesus to the cross working through the Jewish leaders as well as Judas. In the end Satan’s anger will be brought to full force through the Anti-Christ who will amass a world army to do battle with God’s people. Therefore all of Satan’s works are expressions of his anger toward God. With those two real extremes in mind we can now consider human anger and evaluate it in relationship to God and Satan’s anger.

Though the first explicit mention of anger is in Genesis 4 in the episode between Cain and Abel, Powlison considers the first expression of anger to be Adam’s attitude and actions after the fall. This is based on Adam’s blame shifting, sense of superiority (blaming God for giving him the woman), and his sense of innocence because these are aspects closely related to anger. The woman demonstrated the same attitude in blaming the serpent. In the next chapter anger is fueled by jealousy and results in the first recorded murder between Cain and Abel. These instances of anger resulted in a world full of violence (Gen. 6:11). Powlison goes through a number of passages demonstrating characteristics of anger. In short, anger can be easily aroused, mask itself in innocence, be vengeful, result in cursing and uncontrolled actions. Anger is equated with murder in that it can hurt helpless people, make unjust judgments, cause character defamation, bring physical harm, and inner hatred. Righteous anger be characterized by loving reproof and correction, confrontation, protection of the innocent, and motivation to do good. Powlison also discusses the motivations for anger, namely, desires and unbelief. He reminds us that the Old Testament is clear that the Israelites grumbled because their desires were not met and in many situations they did not believe God would take care of them (e.g. by defeating Pharaoh’s army and the inhabitants in the promised land). Cain’s anger stemmed from his desire for approval and the anger of Potiphar’s wife stemmed from her unmet desire for Joseph. Virtually all sinful anger stems from getting what you don’t want or not getting what you do want.

The consequences of anger are an increasing amount of anger and destruction. Proverbs 29:22 states, “An angry man stirs up strife.” That is to say that anger is not self-contained. It spreads to others around it. Even God gets angry when we’re angry, but His anger is a righteous anger at our sinful anger. The Bible is filled with people who were continually angry such as Saul, Jonah, Jezebel, Nabal, Pharisees, and even the disciples became angry on occasion. Righteous anger is rare, but we do have records of people exhibiting this behavior. Moses expressed righteous anger when the people were worshipping a false god while he was on the mountain. Samson exhibited righteous anger when he knew the enemies of Israel were celebrating. We have many records in the Psalms of David’s righteous anger at the prospering of his enemies and his desire for God to glorify himself in their destruction. Finally, hints of Paul’s anger toward false teachers can be found throughout his epistles.

With this foundation of anger understood, Powlison moves on to discuss observations about the expression of anger.

Though anger is an emotion it always acts out through words and/or actions. Powlison refers to this as “Anger is Something you DO.” Not only do we typically act out in anger but our bodies change physically. Muscle and nerve tension, swollen nostrils, body temperature rises, at extreme times adrenaline can surge the body. This explains the terms often used for anger such as hot-tempered, breathing fire, steamed, volcanic, etc. Anger also involves our minds as we make judgments, replay the offense mentally, and perhaps quickly plot revenge. Anger also always has an object on which it is focused. Anger typically occurs between people as in families, politics, religions, work, friendships, etc. but it can also occur toward a impersonal object such a Balaam’s donkey, a pet, a piece of furniture that gives a stubbed toe, etc. Most importantly anger occurs between people and God. No anger toward God is just, but it abounds on earth as people blame God for suffering and difficult times.

For those who believe in the doctrine of utter depravity it is no surprise that anger is natural, but at the same time how one expresses anger is learned. Parents who yell at their children reap yelling children. Parents who react physically without self-control have the same problems in their children.

The final point is that anger is a moral issue. This is easily seen by the fact that a person gets angry when they feel wronged. That is to say they have made a moral judgment about something and deemed it wrong as opposed to right, therefore they react in anger. Not only does anger evaluate right and wrong, but it is also evaluated by God and others. Is the anger righteous or sinful? God reacts to sinful anger with righteous anger, people typically react to sinful anger with sinful anger.

Though Powlison uses a significant amount of Scripture, there was also much support by observation. That is not entirely bad as anger is something we are all familiar with and see all around us. But Scripture provides many of the same supports we see around us (which makes sense since the Bible matches reality). It would have been nice to see more information coming from Psalms and Proverbs which are rich with this issue. Overall as Part 1 in a series it was a helpful start at the subject and ended with good evaluative questions to ask oneself on whether a moment of anger is righteous or sinful.

Counseling and the Problem of the Past

2009-10-24T11:57:00.001-07:00

What follows is a review/analysis of an article.

What relationship does the past play in a counselee’s current circumstances? Should the counselor seek to understand the past? Should the counselor use the past in counseling? What does Scripture say about how we should think about the past? These are all questions which John Bettler seeks to answer in “Counseling and the Problem of the Past.” The article, taken from a lecture, begins with comments regarding different methods of biblical counseling and the need for a Biblical Counselor’s Confession of Faith which would allow for differences among biblical counseling methods yet provide a line of demarcation between true biblical counseling and any other form of counseling. The need becomes apparent in the discussion of the past because there are differences of opinion regarding the role of the past in biblical counseling.

According to Bettler there are three main difficulties which the past presents to counselors. First, it is a counseling problem because counselees inevitably bring it up. Whether they are trying to make connections in their own mind or for other reasons they may bring up something out the blue from the distant past which may or may not have relevance to the situation at hand. As the counselor sitting and listening to this recollection, how do you respond? Do you pry for more information, ignore it altogether, or tuck it in the back of your mind for further reference? Secondly, the past is a cultural problem because of the culture’s preoccupation with the past. Nearly everyone is a victim of some form of abuse or dysfunction and that supposedly allows us to excuse current behaviors. Third, the past is a psychotherapeutic problem. Pop psychologies tend to come and go with the theories reaching limited acceptance. However psychoanalysis theories are comparatively old and abiding. Freud’s view of the person as a closed system, the idea of the unconscious, and catharsis are all significant foundations of psychology which have maintained a “persistent challenge to Christianity.” Biblical counseling must have a viable view of the past to answer these dominant secular worldviews of our day.

With these problems understood Bettler moves on to provide the biblical view of the past and how it plays a role in counseling. There is a significant emphasis in all of Scripture on the need for God’s people to remember God’s past and future works. Many of the feasts and ceremonies commanded in the Law of Moses were specifically for Israel to remember God’s redemption out of Egypt. The sacrifices were to cause them to look forward to God’s redemption in the future. In the New Testament believers have the Lord’s Supper to remember Christ’s sacrifice in the past and his return in the future. Negatively there is also an emphasis on remember the sins others in the past which serve as a warning for us (1 Cor 10:1-13).

Additionally, the past is relevant in counseling because it is the context in which the person lives. As Bettler correctly states, “That counselee in front of you wasn’t born yesterday.” Understanding the past is understanding what has lead the counselee to his current situation. The difficulty is that the counselee is a biased replayer of the past. Memories are active, selective, and creative meaning that we choose to remember certain things in certain ways which may or may not reflect reality. Therefore what happened is not as important as how the counselee reacted. The most significant application of the past, according to Bettler, is using the past to discover a person’s “manner of life,” namely, those patterns a person has developed over time which lie beneath the current situation.

Recognizing that in an article there is limited space and extensive treatment of the issue is constricted, there are other aspects of Scripture’s use of the past that are relevant to counseling which Bettler neglected to address. Bettler listed three things God wants us to remember: His past works of deliverance and provision, Christ’s death and future return, and the past sins of others. However none of these uses of the past relate to the counselee who brings up their distant past of either their own sin or sin perpetrated upon them.

There are at least three additional ways that God wants us to utilize the past in our own lives. First, God wants us to remember our former life. Second, He wants us to remember His transforming work and its basis. Third, in times of sin he wants us to remember the times we were faithful.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul reminds the Corinthians that those who practice sin will not enter God’s kingdom. The sole purpose for telling them that is to remind them, or cause them to remember, that is who they were. The sins which Paul listed were not randomly chosen for their severity or shock value. Paul specifically listed sins which the people in the church of Corinth had participated in prior to salvation. The purpose of this was to demonstrate how their actions (suing believers in courts of law) were irreconcilable with their new eternal status. This is made clear by Paul’s three-pronged argument against suing believers: 1) saints will just the world, 2) saints will judge angels, and 3) the unrighteous won’t be there. The conclusion is that since the saints have a prestigious eternal position (in contrast to the unrighteous), then why would they allow the unrighteous to judge them? However lest the Corinthians get prideful over their position, Paul reminds them that they too were at one time in the category of the unrighteous and it was God, not themselves, that took them out of that category. Therefore we can extract a general principle that God wants us to remember our past in order to keep us humble as believers.

Another passage which makes use of the past is Ephesians 2:1-10ff. In this familiar passage Paul first reminds his readers of the destitute state in which they once lived. The motivation for this recollection was not primarily humility, but to provide the foundation for God’s grace. Before Paul could emphasize the one-sidedness of their salvation he had to destroy any notion that any person is saved of their own merit. This universal destitution and gracious salvation is the basis for Paul’s next point (2:11-22) which is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The broader principle we can extract from this text in terms of that past is anyone who has a low view of God’s grace has a high view of their life before Christ. In other words, if anyone thinks they contributed to their salvation in any way, they need to understand from God’s perspective who they were before Christ. The past, in this case, magnifies God’s grace.
A third use of the past is demonstrated in Revelation 2:1-7 where the Lord dictates a letter to Ephesus. The key verse is verse five where the Lord says, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first…” In this context the Lord is calling for the church to repent of “abandoning the love [they] had at first” (v. 4). The Ephesians have a history of faithfulness in this area so it is not as though they are unaware of what to do. They simply need to be reminded of their past faithfulness and called back to it.

Certainly these additional three uses of the past, together with those mentioned in the article are not exhaustive of potential biblical uses of the past in counseling. However it should be noted, as stated in the article, that the past is not a source of blame or excuse for current behavior.

Another issue which would require more time and research to develop is the different Greek and Hebrew terms which are translated “remember.” μιμνῄσκομαι has the emphasis of “recollect” and “remind oneself” whereas μνημονεύω emphasizes more “keep in mind” or “think about.” How these terms (and others) are used in their contexts would be a necessary study which was not examined in the article.

Truths that Overcome

2009-10-12T07:20:00.001-07:00

Many books and articles have been written to help both counselors and counselees learn to how to handle sexual sin and temptation. Because of the variety of expressions of sexual sin typically these articles are more focused on dealing with a particular nuanced version (e.g. pornography, masturbation, or homosexuality). Some resources attempt to deal with the presentation problem and correct the behavior, while others go deeper at root causes and help bring about change from there. My goal in this paper is to collate the fundamental issues that drive sexual sin in general. My hope is that through this paper the counselor or counselee will be able to take a hold of God’s Word, correct their thinking where it has been wrong and move back onto the path of righteousness.

What is sexual sin? How do we know when someone has transgressed into it? As with all sin sexual sin does not begin with a physical action. While sexual acts are in and of themselves sinful outside biblical boundaries they are not the core issues. The core issue is what is going on—and what had gone on—in the heart. My definition of sexual sin is an unchecked desire for a person, object, activity, or sensation which is outside the bounds of marriage or outside the biblical purpose of sexual activity, and which may or may not be expressed in a physical action. Whether we call it an idol of the heart, a lust or desire, or a fundamental misunderstanding (or rejection) of biblical truth, the reality is that all these come into play to one degree or another. Articles have been written to address each of these areas of sexual sin, and my hope is that this paper will bring all of these concepts together for a holistic counseling paradigm.

Changing the Mind

Repentance of any sin begins with the mind. The foundational meaning of metánoia in the New Testament is a change of mind. Change behavior certainly follows but without the change of mind it is only hypocritical. Therefore it is important in dealing with sexual sin to deal extensively with the mind of the counselee. What do they believe? How do they view sexuality? How do they view marriage? What is their understanding of intimacy? What do they think is the purpose of sex? Whom do they think owns their body? These and many more questions must be asked in order to assess where the counselee needs to have teaching and correction. The rest of this paper will examine several primary texts which deal with the most fundamental mind and heart issues that drive sexual sin. The order in which these issues are dealt with in this paper is not indicative of a natural progression in a person’s heart. The counselor would need to determine which issues and in which order to address these with the counselee.

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

One of the universally fundamental issues at the core of all sexual sin is a misunderstanding or rejection of the truth that whether single or married our bodies do not belong to us. We do not have the right to do anything with our bodies that we desire. 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 discusses how this principle applies to all people whether married or single. The primary truth is this: as believers our body is for the Lord, a member of Christ’s body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and bought by God. In short, God owns our body. Paul describes the result of sexual sin like this: “Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?” (6:15). To do such a thing is to “sin against his own body” (6:18) because it is doing with the body what it was not intended to do.

When God created us and subsequently saved us there came upon our bodies a new mandate. Ephesians 2:10 states, “For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The physical body is a gift from God that enables us to worship and serve him. The body is unique among God’s creation. We stand upright, have opposable thumbs, we are able to communicate, think, rationalize, learn, and invent. Our bodies in conjunction with our minds are wonders of creation and uniquely fit to accomplish God’s purposes. Therefore to use the body in a way and for such purposes that are opposed to God is not only a rejection of our redeemed purpose, but God himself. Paul refers to this in Romans 1:24-27 as actions which “are contrary to nature,” “dishonoring of their bodies,” “shameless acts,” which ultimately “exchange the truth about God for a lie.”

The person struggling with sexual sin in mind and body must come to grips with the fact that they are not their own. They simply do not have the rights to do what they will with their body. Secondly, regardless of whether the counselee is married they must also realize that their body belongs to their spouse. If they are unmarried it is critically important, even if more difficult, to realize that their body belongs to their future spouse because anything that happens today will impact their future marriage. If they contract an STD now it will have the same impact on their future marriage than it would for a currently married couple (if not more).

Paul spells this principle clearly in 1 Corinthians 7:4, “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but he husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The reason Paul is making this point will be the subject of the next section, but his point in this verse stands on its own even as it serves a greater purpose in the context. The point could not be more clear: no spouse has the right to do what they want with their own body because it does not belong to them, it in fact belongs to their spouse. The implication of this is when a married person sins sexually by pornography, adultery, or some other form, they are not merely being unfaithful; they are also taking what belongs to their spouse and employing it for their own purposes. The same principle applies to the unmarried person. While unmarried everyone is a steward of their body, waiting until the day when they will give themselves to their spouse. In God’s sovereignty a person’s spouse is known by God and in the same way that our sanctification is complete in one sense and progressive in another, so in God’s eyes those who will marry are as good as married in God’s eyes. Sins done in the body (1 Cor. 6:18) have lasting impact and will without doubt have an impact on one’s future spouse.

According to the world, “it’s your body, you can do with it what you want.” This is not only the argument for body piercing, tattoos, and all sorts of body mutilation, but it is also the argument for seeking every sexual experience possible. If our bodies truly were our own perhaps such a case could be made, but the fact is our bodies are not our own. First and foremost our bodies belong to God. We are stewards of the physical and mental capacities that we have been given for approximately 80 years. God has a purpose for our bodies and we must submit to his purposes, not our desires. Secondly our bodies belong to our present or future spouse. As sexual beings we were made for each other, not for ourselves. This necessarily takes us into the second point, namely, for whom is your sexuality?

For Whom Is Your Sexuality?

In the previous section we ended discussing Paul’s statement regarding who owns the rights to our bodies within the marital relationship. The text quoted comes from the context of 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 in which Paul discusses the necessity and providence of marriage. Paul begins in verse two, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” It is interesting that Paul does not say one should simply “get married” to prevent sexual immorality. Paul is certainly not advocating that marriage is the conduit to self-gratification. This is made clear here and in what follows. First, Paul says “each man should have his own wife…” This excludes homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, harems, and anything that violates a heterosexual monogamous sexual relationship in marriage. Secondly, Paul describes a clear principle of ownership (which he elucidates in verse 4): “his own wife” and “her own husband.” Out of context this verse could be interpreted to allow self-gratification, but what Paul says next removes that possibility. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (3). The clear focus is other-centered. That is to say that your spouse is your own, not for your own pleasure, but for their pleasure. In the same way that a soldier may sign up for the military not primarily for their own benefit (though many do), but to serve and benefit their country, a person should not get married to fulfill their sexual dreams, but to fulfill the needs of their spouse.

Paul then clearly describes the reason for spouse-gratification rather than self-gratification. Your body does not belong to you; it belongs to your spouse for their benefit. Therefore, “do not deprive one another… so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (5). Again, the focus is not on self-gratification to stave off temptation, but on spouse-gratification for their purity. Put another way, God gave you a spouse so that you can help them avoid sexual sin.

The beauty of this truth is that in the process of giving “conjugal rights” and “not depriving one another” both husband and wife are equally served and have their needs met. It is not like the server who distributes food and gets only leftovers for himself, or the preacher who serves the spiritual meal and receives little to nothing from the congregation. There are many examples of one-sided service and edification, but a sexual relationship should be equally satisfying to both husband and wife at the same time. There may be times where one is benefited alone for health or medical reasons, but that should be the rare exception, not the rule.

This principle takes the marital sexual relationship beyond physical activity to spiritual edification whereby each spouse is assisting their spouse in holiness by reducing their openness to temptation. In addition to producing children and simply enjoying the pleasure of a sexual relationship, God has provided that relationship so that each spouse can serve the other and help them avoid sexual sin.

Whom or What Are You Worshipping?

In biblical counseling the concept of heart idols can be utilized in almost every situation. James’ admonition in James 4:2 that “you desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel” is at the root of virtually all relationship problems as each party has unmet desires and expectations. The word translated “desire” is epithumía which in this context has a sinful connotation, but the term is not inherently sinful. Desires and passions can be both healthy and good or sinful. The determining factor is both the object and the level of desire. When epithumía is used in a sexual context, it is always sinful. This is because strong sexual desires are always self-centered in the sense that the body naturally wants to be sexually satisfied and is not really all that interested in whether or not anyone else is satisfied. Therefore the fundamental answer to the question of who are you worshipping is yourself. The person who practices sexual sin of any form is worshipping themselves by their own lusts regardless of the impact on others. But sexual sin can also be worship of another or an activity.

Paul’s letter to the Romans speaks to this issue of sexual activity as worship. In Romans 1:18-32 Paul describes a progression of truth suppression and worship exchange which includes exchanging “the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (23). While ancient cultures worshipped many forms of man-like images, some of the prominent ones are images of many-breasted women in various cultures. Other sexually charged images were utilized in temples where one worshipped by lying with a prostitute. Sexual activity in religious worship led to non-religious forms of worship. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator” (25). Paul explains what he means by continuing: “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…” (26-27). Men and women worship and serve the creature by committing acts which are both contrary to nature and contrary to God’s revelation.

The formula is simple: the one whose standard is adhered to is the one being worshipped. If a person is obeying God’s standard for sexuality then God is being worshipped. If a person’s own standard of sexuality is being obeyed, then they are worshipping themselves. If a person is adhering to another person’s or group’s standard of sexuality, then they are being worshipped. In reality when God is not singularly worshipped, then worship is spread around to oneself and others. Sinful expressions of sexuality are idolatry. Biblical expressions of sexuality are God-glorifying.

Who is in Control?

Once a person has made sexual sin a habit, the world calls it an addiction or a disease and tries to convince the person that they have no control over their problem. They are really not at fault and must be rehabilitated by external means because they don’t have control to be able to change on their own. Those who struggle deeply with sexual sin admit that in their experience they find it virtually impossible to resist the temptations of lust. God tells a completely different story for the Christian struggling with sin. According to Scripture, the believer has all the necessary resources to overcome sin in power of the Spirit.

Romans 8 is the key text for this principle. In the previous chapter Paul has been speaking of the conflict in the believer where experientially sin feels like it has some measure of control in our lives. But while this may feel like it is true, Paul then proclaims that it is patently false. Sin does not have control over the believer because “the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (8:2). The key issue in overcoming the strong pull of sexual sin is to whom does the counselee give control—the Spirit of the flesh? Paul says “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (8:5). We ought to “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4). In writing to the church in Colossae Paul makes a similar point, “set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God… Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion…” (Col. 3:2-5).

Scripture is clear that unbelievers have no choice in this matter. They are ruled by sin. Believers do have a choice and the sign of true repentance is choosing to walk according to the Spirit, obeying God’s commands, pleasing God. The Christian counselee struggling with sexual sin must agree with God’s Word that they do have control and because of the indwelling Spirit we have “all things that pertain the life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). In the moment of temptation they may feel like they are compelled to sin, but they must know that they are not. In that moment the counselee must proclaim this truth to themselves and be reminded that God’s Word is true above our feelings.

To What Must You Change?

When a person is seeking counseling, they are seeking change. Usually the counselee has a different goal that the counselor would have for them, sometimes they are so confused they don’t know what their goal should be. When a person struggles with sexual sin it usually invades their life. It may impact their finances, but it may not. It may impact their friendships, but it may not. It may impact their occupation, but it may not. These different areas are external consequences that depending on the type of sexual sin and severity of the problem may or may not be affected. What is always affected is a person’s heart and mind. All sexual sin begins in the heart and mind, but it doesn’t all end there. Therefore all change must begin in the heart and mind, and that will often indirectly impact external areas. A person deeply engrossed in sexual sin has a mind which easily wanders into lustful thinking. Virtually anything can cause their mind to go astray at any time—especially boredom. Therefore true change not only deals with behavior and desires, but one must train the mind to have God-honoring thought patterns and to control a wandering mind.

There are two key passages that help us know what a person should strive to become. The first is Galatians 5:16-25. Paul begins this section by explaining that those who “walk by the Spirit will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (16). How do you know if you’re walking by the flesh? You bear the fruit of that, namely, “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry” (19ff), etc. How do you know if you’re walking in the Spirit? You bear the fruit of that, namely, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” (22-23). Space does not permit us to discuss how each of these fruit counteracts sexual sin, but we will briefly consider the first and last—love and self-control. The person struggling with sexual sin must change to be a loving person who exhibits self-control. Love of course has nothing to do with feelings and emotions. Love is simply a commitment to do what is best for another (see 1 Corinthians 13:5-8). A sexually immoral person is not loving because they are only concerned for themselves. They don’t consider how their thoughts and actions will impact others, they simply want their desires met. On the other hand a loving person will crucify “the flesh with its passions and desires” (25) and seek the good of others. Secondly they will exhibit self-control. The sexually immoral person is impulsive in their mind and usually in their actions. Their goal is to be self-controlled so that when their mind wanders they take their thoughts captive and repent and think about right things. If they are on the Internet and there is an enticing image or website link then their first instinct is to ignore it or close the browser whereas before they would instinctively click on it. If they drive by an adult store they are able to continue driving rather than impulsively stopping and walking into sin. In counseling it would be helpful to go through each of the categories and help the counselee see what their life should look like when they are walking by the Spirit rather than the flesh.

The second key passage is Philippians 4:8. This is a helpful verse for the counselee to memorize to counteract sinful thinking, however it is only a starting point. When a person finds themselves having sinful thoughts, this passage should be used as a reminder to transition to thinking godly thoughts. It is not helpful to simply recite the verse as some sort of incantation that will take the thoughts away. Instead one should recite it as a reminder of their responsibility and move on to have productive thoughts which crowd out the sinful thoughts. For married men they can think about their wives (mainly in a non-sexual way) and thank God for His gift of a wife who loves and cares for him. Meditating on the gospel, reciting the gospel to himself, can be helpful to remind oneself of God’s grace and forgiveness and the ways in which God demonstrates his love. If he is at work then he can simply refocus and think about the tasks at hand. If in school then refocus on the lecture or homework. We can honor God by thinking about any number of things whether they are spiritual in nature (the gospel) or not (work related tasks). The key is simply to train the mind to not wander into sinful territory, but keep it focused on what is pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and worthy of praise.

There are other areas of change that should be discussed, and have been in other works. Galatians 5:16-25 and Philippians 4:8 provide the foundation of change that is needed before other change is sought.

Conclusion

Scripture clearly portrays sexual sin as a choice from which one can change if they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Good biblical counseling will not merely deal with outward actions and behaviors, but will get into the core issues of someone’s life examining what Scripture teaches about what drives sexual sin. In the course of teaching a counselee what Scripture teaches there are at least five issues which the counselee must adopt into their worldview.

First, the believer must learn to view their body as the property of someone else, namely, God. God has purchased our bodies by the blood of Christ and therefore as its Creator and Purchaser he determines how it is to be used. Secondly their body belongs to their spouse, whether or not they are married. When a person sins sexually they are usurping the authority of their spouse over their body. Second, not only does their body belong to their spouse, it is for their spouse. God provides marriage not for the purpose of self-gratification, but for mutual gratification so that each spouse can please the other and assist them in reducing sexual temptation. Third, how one uses their sexuality is a demonstration of whom they worship. If they worship God they will remain obedient to God’s standard of the proper sexual relationship. If not, they worship themselves and others in adhering to ungodly standards of sexuality. Fourth, the believer must know the biblical truth that no matter how strong sexual temptation is, God has given his divine power via the indwelling Holy Spirit to control any temptation. Fifth, the sexually immoral have become so self-described by their sin (e.g. “I’m a homosexual”), that they need biblical guidance as to what they are to change to. It is not enough for them to acknowledge their need to stop their thinking and behavior, they need to know what to become.

Certainly these five issues are not exhaustive and themselves have only been treated in summary fashion here. Numerous additional scriptures could and should be added to bring hope and clarity. The articles contained in the bibliography include other aspects which are useful in thinking through other foundational issues as well. In this culture of sexual inundation we can be so thankful that God’s Word is sufficient to provide hope and solutions to this sin which can be so entrapping, but by God’s grace and truth we are able to overcome.

I’m a sinner

2009-09-20T13:06:00.001-07:00

Recently I watched a public discussion between one particular pastor and CJ Mahaney. CJ has written a short book called Humility: True Greatness. I have not read the book (yet) but apparently in there he talked about how a Christian should view themselves as compared to how they view others. Now again, I haven’t read the book, but I have heard him give messages where he discusses this, so I had some background as to the discussion these two pastors were having.

If there is one word that could describe CJ it would be humble. He is a sought after conference speaker and well known and respected among several different Christian circles and denominations. Nearly every time he gets up to speak he sincerely expresses how he is humbled to be there, not knowing why they would ask him to speak when there are many more gifted speakers, etc. These are not trite statements but clearly sincere expressions of humility. He also has expressed his view that he is the worst sinner he knows. That view is a major contributor to his humility. (As a side note, he doesn’t claim to have arrived at humility, and he nearly regrets writing to book because it makes people think he thinks of himself as having arrived, though he knows he has not).

Back to this public discussion (which occurred on stage at the end of a conference). The pastor hosting the conference wanted to pry into CJ’s belief that he is the worst sinner he knows. The pastor admitted what most, if not all, of us would admit, namely, that we are not the worst sinner we know. The pastor stated that if given the chance he could probably point out people attending the conference whom he thought would be worse sinners than himself in terms of scale and magnitude. Now before you judge him for saying that, he was just saying out loud what most of us think on a daily basis.

CJ’s response as to why he disagrees is that (and this is hard to say in the third person), CJ doesn’t really know anyone else as much as he knows himself. He really knows how sinful he is, but he doesn’t really know how sinful other people are. There may be external sins which could be compared, but external sins pale in comparison to sins of the heart. CJ knows his own sins of the heart; he doesn’t know anyone else’s sins of the heart, so as far as he is concerned, he is the worst sinner he knows.

That reminds me of something John MacArthur has said. In response to the question of “do you sin less as you get older,” John says (paraphrasing), “perhaps if you were to count every sin, you probably do sin less… that is the effect of true sanctification. But it doesn’t end there. The problem is the more sanctified you get, the more you understand the gravity of sin. The result is that you sin less, but you feel worse.” In other words, when an immature Christian overtly sins, there is some measure of impact on his conscience, but when a mature Christian sins the impact is significant.

There is a third aspect which I would offer for consideration. As a Christian grows in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they become accountable for what they know. Practical example: a couple years ago I read an excellent book on parenting. One particular chapter came back to my life yesterday and I realized that I was not actively applying the truths of that chapter to my parenting. When I read that book, and specifically that chapter two years ago, I immediately became accountable for whatever biblical truth it contained. I could no longer claim ignorance. The same thing happens when we hear sermons or read books that teach us God’s standard of living. We become accountable for the rest of our lives. When we don’t live accordingly, we sin. As Christians we are continually becoming more and more accountable every week. Is your life conforming more and more as a result? Mine isn’t. It’s worse for me, James 3:1 should scare every person out of the ministry. It is only God’s calling on my life that compels me to sit under than warning.

I say all that to say this: I’m a sinner. I don’t care who you are or what you’ve done, but as far as I’m concerned, I’m much more of a sinner than you are. To the degree that I understand God’s expectations on my life, I know I fall infinitely short of that standard, and so I cry out with Paul: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” Answer: “Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25).

If you want to read/listen more on our sin and God’s grace, check out two of the sermons on this page. Read/listen to the two messages: 4 Marks of a Hell-bound Man, and 15 Words of Hope.

A Brief Look at the Purpose of Marriage

2009-07-01T21:40:00.001-07:00

The purpose of marriage as set forth in Scripture is fulfilling the need for companionship. After God created Adam He said “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). Companionship should not be misunderstood. It was not that Adam needed a companion to sit around and wait for him to “get off work” so they could spend time together. No, he needed an ezer kenegdo, a suitable helper, to provide companionship which included assistance in the tasks God had delegated to him.

This companionship is expressed by two other texts which speak of the marriage relationship. In speaking of the adulteress the author write that she forsakes the “companion of her youth” (Prov. 2:17). The Hebrew term translated companion here is used in Proverbs to speak of the intimacy of friendship (cf. Prov. 16:28; 17:9). Here it is a clear reference to her husband, but making the point that she did not merely leave a stale marriage, but an intimately close friendship to pursue sin. This verse portrays marriage as a close intimate companionship, something far beyond a merely physical or infatuous relationship.

The second text which adds another dimension is Micah 2:14. Here the term “companion” is the translation of a different Hebrew term which speaks of unity, coupling, joining. Therefore marriage is not just two people carrying on as individuals, they are united and joined together at the hip, as it were. Therefore the biblical understanding of marriage is that it is a deep, abiding, intertwined relationship of companionship between and man and a woman.

This is in contrast to the Catholic view of the purpose of marriage which highlights the propagation of the human race in order to fulfill Genesis 1:28. Certainly this is a function of marriage, but if it is a purpose of marriage then so is subduing the earth and having dominion over everything that moves in it (which no one suggests). Therefore propagation of mankind is not a purpose for marriage, but a function of it. Furthermore the context of this passage is not marriage itself but the duty of mankind. Exegetically this passage does not refer to marriage at all and it is only from the rest of Scripture that we can limit propagation to marriage. Anecdotally we know that marriage is completely unnecessary for propagation. Not only to animals do it routinely, but it also is occurring more and more around the world. The number of unwed mothers continues to rise as the number of marriages continues to plummet. Therefore marriage is technically unnecessary for propagating the human race.

Another wrong view of the purpose of marriage is that it legitimizes sex. In other words, the sole difference between a married couple and an unmarried is their sexual relationship (i.e. mating). Mating is distinct from propagation because it refers simply to the joining of two people in a sexual relationship. The arguments against this view are similar to the propagation view. Scripture in no place mentions mating as the purpose of marriage, only a function of it (Gen. 2:24). Yet even the concept of mating is unbiblical because it lacks the existence of a deeper relationship. Just as animals mate and are not faithful to one another, so do people mate apart from any level of relationship and without any thought to faithfulness or companionship. In other words, marriage is unnecessary for mating to occur.

Though marriage is not necessary for propagation and mating, marriage is the means by which propagation is fulfilled and in which a deep and meaningful form of mating occurs. But these are not the purposes of marriage. Marriage is first and foremost the solution to the problem that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

Considerations in Elders and Leaders

2009-03-16T07:50:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: I updated one of the paragraphs below where I had said that Peter’s business business was failing, not thriving. It now points to what Scripture actually says.

Gene Getz has written a book entitled Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan for Leading the Church. He is a long time pastor, author, seminary professor, and host of a radio program. After many years of wisdom and experience he was compelled by those around him to write a book on the issue of what Scripture says about biblical leadership in the book.

In today’s post I just want to focus on the chapter called “The Need for a Primary Leader.” The central thesis of this chapter is that Scripture teaches that above the plurality of elders, there should be a primary leader who leads the elders and the rest of the church. This is what most of us have experienced in churches with a the Senior or Lead Pastor to varying degrees.

Before reading this chapter I knew what to expect in terms of his conclusions, but I was caught off guard by his method of arriving at his conclusions. Up until this chapter the book had some more or less minor interpretive issues, but this chapter took the cake in eisegesis (reading a meaning into the text). Below are the examples:

#1: A Wrong focus on Peter

The first goal of the chapter is to demonstrate that Peter was the Primary Leader of the apostles after Jesus ascended to heaven. His initial proof is the number of references to Peter in the Gospels and Acts as opposed to the other apostles. In other words, he used statistics of the use of Peter’s name as a proof of Peter’s primacy. What is interesting here is that he does not include Paul in his consideration. If he did, he would find that Paul is mentioned almost twice as much as Peter in the book of Acts. In fact, Paul is mentioned 135 times in Acts, while Peter is mentioned 152 times in the Gospels and Acts. Peter is only mentioned less than 60 times in Acts, which is the story of the beginning of the church! What is even more, Paul wrote most of the New Testament letters to the churches! If Peter were the primary leader in Christiandom (as Getz states on page 149), then we would want to have seen him take some leadership in writing to the churches. Now of course my point is not that Paul was the primary leader, but simply that just Peter appears to be a focus in the Gospels (but not in Acts as Getz would have you think), does not automatically give him primacy.

#2: Many Assumptions

“Clearly, Jesus focused on equipping Peter to be the primary leader” (218). Having given only the “proof” from #1, this is clearly an assumption, not a fact.

“Furthermore, he focused next on John who was to be his associate (note again the statistics…)” (218). Again with only statistics as his proof, this is an assumption, not a fact.

“When Jesus eventually called Peter… [he] was already the primary leader in [his fishing business]” (218). No biblical proof or evidence of any kind to support this. Pure assumption. Getz says that since Peter had partners (Andrew, James, and John), it shows that he was the primary leader. That’s only proves he had co-workers, not that he was the manager.

Peter was “once a tough-minded chief executive officer of a thriving fishing business” (148). This time he offers no support of any kind. This assumption ignores the fact that when Jesus first met Peter, he had worked all night and caught nothing (Luke 5:1-5). I’m no fisherman, but catching nothing is not one of the signs of a thriving fishing business! In fact, the only time we know that Peter’s fishing thrived was when Jesus miraculously intervened!

In reference to the washing of the disciples’ feet, Getz says that Peter resisted out of embarrassment “primarily because he was well aware that this was an oversight when he and John had arranged for this event” (149-150). Oversight? That’s more than an assumption. It is rejecting what the text says and importing a new reason for Peter’s resistance!

“When he stood up on the day of Pentecost and [preached], not one of the apostles hesitated to follow him” (220). First, Peter's sermon did nothing to demonstrate his primacy. Second, the apostles didn’t “follow” him, they sat and listened. Getz is trying to get much more meaning out of this than there is.

“Again and again, we read that “Peter and John” took the lead and, even though these two men worked closely together, they were not coleaders. Peter was continually the primary spokesman…” (220). Simply because Peter was the primary spokesman, does not automatically mean that he was the primary leader. There is no substantial evidence that Getz has put forward. It’s simply assumption upon assumption which has the appearance of an argument, but it is all a house of cards.

“Based on what we see in the total biblical story of leadership, we can only assume that [Timothy and Titus] were also influential in making sure there was a key leader in charge” (223). Again, his “total biblical story” is a mound of assumptions. And he explicitly makes his point of an assumption.

“Though we’re not told who lead the elders/overseers on a permanent basis after Timothy, we can assume it happened immediately or shortly thereafter.” The assumption pile is getting higher!

#3: Other Issues

Getz acknowledges that Peter never claimed this leadership for himself, but always considered himself as “a fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). Getz points to Peter’s humility in this, I say it is clear that Peter never claimed it because he never had it.

Getz neglects Matthew 16:18 which is what Catholics use to affirm Peter’s primacy. There were a couple times where I wondered if Getz was alluding to this verse, but he never mentioned it. On page 151 Getz states, “As Jesus’ chosen leader, [Peter] began to speak the word of God…” If there were any text that would support Getz claim in this quote or any other section of the book where he affirms the same, Matthew 16:18 would be the text. And yet he never once mentions or references it.

Conclusion

There is more to say about Getz view of the primary leader, but in this post I just wanted to point out his poor use of observation and assumptions which he uses to make a significant point in how God’s church is to be led.

If you would be interested in more biblical treatment on this issue, I highly recommend Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch.

It was miraculous, not natural

2009-03-09T21:39:00.001-07:00

John MacArthur’s first message in this year’s Shepherd’s Conference began like this: “Two years ago I started out the conference saying why every self-respecting Calvinist should be a Premillenialist. Last year I started out the conference saying why every self-respecting Calvinist should reject the Church Growth Movement. This year I want to start by saying why every self-respecting Calvinist, Evangelical, and Christian should be a six-day creationist.”

Pretty bold statement! If you would like to listen to the message, you can find it here. Just sign up for a free account and go to the Media Vault. It’s General Session 1 from the 2009 Shepherd’s Conference.

One of the most unique statements in the whole message was this: “Get past the idea that you need to reconcile Scripture with science.” In other words, then it comes to creation, forget science altogether. He even dismissed to a great degree what he termed “so-called creation science.”

Why did he say this? For the simple reason that creation was a miracle. A miracle, by its nature, in unnatural. A miracle can break every natural law in the book. You do not hear of people trying to perform science on Jesus’ walking on water (breaking the law of gravity, perhaps changing the nature of the water). No one tries to figure out how Jesus restored the withered hand of the man in front of the Pharisees. Certainly no one would figure out how a man who had been dead for several days could naturally be raised from the dead.

Yet when it comes to God’s display of miraculous power in creation everyone wants to figure out how it happened naturally. Of course it is unbelievers who primarily reject the biblical creation because they reject God and his power. Why do Christians follow suit and attempt to add biblical authority to the anti-God conclusions of unbelievers whose answer to problems is to add billions of years to allow for more evolution?

There is no need to look at psuedo-science evidence of what unbelievers refer to as a natural event. There is nothing natural about Genesis 1. The questions we ask regarding natural “problems” (e.g. how can plans survive without the sun, how was there light before the sun) stem from forgetting that there was nothing natural in what happened from days one to six.

It really does come down to this. You simply cannot explain a miracle in natural terms. Period.

Global language

2009-03-09T21:20:00.001-07:00

Probably for the last time I want to emphasize how much the text of Scripture speaks of a global flood. This week we are covering Genesis 7, and in it there are numerous phrases that indicate a global flood. I’ll point out each one.

Verse 2-3: “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals… and a pair of the animals that are not clean… seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also… to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.”

These verses point to a global flood simply on the basis that the animals needed protection from being wiped out. Certainly there are unique animals in some regions, but why save every kind of animal unless they would all be wiped out throughout the earth?

Verse 4: “… every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Here God broadens the scope not just to animals and people in the land, but to everything he created. Surely no one would argue that God only created land animals in the Mesopotamian region. In fact, local flood advocates deny that everything God created died. God does not limit his statement as if to say “everything I have created in this part of the earth.” And with the entire context there it no way to bring such an implication.

Verse 11: “… all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.”

One could argue that the “windows of the heavens” that were opened were just over the Mesopotamian region, since that is the perspective of the text. But one could not make the same argument for “all the fountains.”

Verse 14-16: “they and every beast… and all the livestock… and every creeping thing… and every bird… every winged creature. They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life…. male and female of all flesh” (emphasis mine).

There is no room in the context to limit the “all” to those which Noah gathered. The two phrases “all flesh” and “breath of life” broaden the “all” to every creature [period].

Verse 19-20: “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered… covering them fifteen cubits [22.5 feet] deep.”

If one part of the world is completely covered, and another part is not, does that not assume that something stopped the water from going past a certain point? Here such a barrier is removed. It’s not just the low hills that were covered. The text emphasizes the “high” mountains were covered. And not just the “high” mountains, but those “under the whole heaven.” There is absolutely no possible way to restrict that to a local area.

Verse 21-23: “And all flesh died that moved on the earth… Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground… they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.”

If God wanted to communicate total devastation beyond a given locality, I cannot imagine what else he could say. The text repeats its universal nature five times in three verses: four times saying what died and once saying what survived.

If one were to argue that “earth” could be translated “land” which could change the sense of several of these passages, I would simply ask what indication is there in the text that anything on the dry land throughout the globe survived?

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence? Part 5

2009-03-05T19:47:00.000-08:00

Today I'd like to point out some major deficiencies in Eldredge's view of God. He has a chapter titled "The Wild One Whose Image We Bear." In it, he does his best to portray God as the wild man he (Eldredge) wants to be. I'm thankful that he uses more Bible references here than anywhere else, yet most of those are from paraphrase versions that use the words he likes, or if the passages are appropriately translated, he pulls them from their greater context to give his meaning. Here are some quotes:

"Be honest now--what is your image of Jesus as a man? 'Isn't he sort of meek and mind?' a friend remarked. 'I mean, the pictures I have of him show a gentle guy with children all around...' Yes, those are the pictures I've seen myself in many churches. In fact, those are the only pictures I've seen of Jesus.... they leave me with the impression that he was the world's nicest guy... I'd much rather be told to be like William Wallace" (22). My question is, why do you need a picture at all? I personally think pictures of Jesus are worthless. They encourage finding Jesus' face on an egg, a rock, a wall, or anything that you can sell on eBay. And especially since most [American] depictions of Jesus are ethnically biased, I simply don't see why we need pictures to form our opinions of Jesus. Before you think I'm off my rocker, I know you can't get away from it with story books, stained-glass windows, etc. But I hope you see my point.

"Now--is Jesus more like Mother Teresa or William Wallace?" (24). Eldredge goes on in this paragraph to show both sides of Jesus... depending on the recipient. Gentleness to the sick and broken-hearted, rage to Pharisees. While his point is valid, he now leaves behind the gentle side and focuses heavily on the "wild" side. I haven't done a good comparison, but I'd be willing to bet there are ten times more instances of gentleness, compassions, etc. in the NT than fierceness.

"It then occurred to me that after God made all this, he pronounced it good, for heaven's sake. It's his way of letting us know he rather prefers adventure, danger, risk..." (30). In the context he's talking about going hiking and finding evidence of bears nearby. What is sorely lacking here is the fact that nature is dramatically affected by the fall. What we experience today in the woods is far different than what existed prior to the fall. Here, again, Eldredge neglects the affect of sin on the world.

"In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-player God... But clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. No doubt the biggest risk of all was when he gave angels and men free will... He did not make Adam and Eve obey him, he took a risk... He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly... Now he lives, almost cheerfully, certainly heroically, in a dynamic relationship with us and with our world. 'Then the Lord intervened' is perhaps the single most common phrase about him in Scripture, in one form or another... Because he loves to come through. He loves to show us that he has what it takes... I am not advocating open theism" (30-32). For anyone who knows what open theism is, if it's not this, I don't know what is. The interesting thing is that I trust his statement that he doesn't believe in open theism. The sovereignty of God is a big topic that must be handled carefully. I don't think it is difficult to understand, but sometimes it is difficult to overcome our objections to the implications. That's where I think Eldredge is. To some extent he believes in God's sovereignty, but to maintain his other views he has to reject complete sovereingty and go over the edge into unbiblical thinking.

"And all his wildness and all his fierceness are insperable from his romantic heart. That theologians have missed this says more about theologians than it does about God." I think Eldredge misjudges theologians. The difference is that theologians, I think, place aspects of God's character that could be called "romantic" in balance with his other character traits. Eldredge, I think, elevates it too high beyond graciousness, justice, mercy, saving love, etc. When Eldredge says God is romantic, his definition is too human, emotional, and shortsighted.

"Do you know why [God] often doesn't answer prayer right away? Because he wants to talk to us, and sometimes that's the only way to get us to stay and talk to him." What? Where does it say that in the Bible? There are several reasons that Bible gives for unanswered prayer: spiritual warfare (Dan. 10:10-14), wrong motives (James 4:3), etc. Nowhere does God hold off answers simply as a teaser to keep us praying. I'm sorry but that's just rediculous.

I'd like to say much more on some of these posts, but I don't want to get too long. Is this enough to make my claim? Does it seem clear that there is much lacking from a good understanding of God's character? In working on this post, I can see glimpses of truth in much of what Eldredge is saying. I just think that he is misrepresenting scripture as a whole, and making mountains out of molehills.

This is the end of this series which I wrote almost three years ago. John Eldredge bases his thinking and books on non-Christian psycological understanding which by it's nature has a wrong anthropology. Therefore the only way to bring Scripture into the picture is to twist and morph it into a pagan framework. While I understand this series has its flaws and is certainly not exhaustive, I hope I have demonstrated that Wild at Heart is thoroughly unbiblical and cannot be trusted to supply the answers men need.

In its place, I cannot recommend highly enough a book called The Exemplary Husband by Stewart Scott. It also has a corollary book entitled The Excellent Wife by another author.

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence? Part 4b

2009-03-04T14:12:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I left off with the question of what change occurs when a person becomes a believer. Here is what Eldredge has to say:

"What God sees when he sees you is the real you, the true you, the man he had in mind when he made you" (134).

"When we begin to offer not merely our gifts but our true selves, that is when we become powerful" (138).

"You are the hero in your story" (142).

"And your flesh is not you" (144).

"In the core of your being you are a good man" (144).

"We are never, ever told to crucify our heart. We are never told to kill the true man within us, never told to get rid of those dep desires for battle and adventure and beauty. We are told to shoot the traitor" (145).

"Has it ever crossed your mind that not every thought that crosses your mind comes from you" (152)?

"If I thought [pride, greed, gluttony] was all me, my heart, I'd be very discouraged. Knowing that my heart is good allowed me to block it, right then and there" (163).

To sum up Eldredge's theology, when you become a Christian, your heart is instantly and wholly good. If there is any sin, wrong thinking, or bad, then its not really you. It's your false self, it's sometimes the devil. The real you is good. I have two major problems with his thinking in the above passages: 1) His focus on self rather than Christ, 2) His idea of false self vs. true self. I'll only discuss the first because otherwise it'll get too long and the second one is quite a muddy discussion.

Here is how Paul talks about his life as a Christian:

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). Eldredge never once makes reference to living by faith by the power of the Spirit. No... Eldredge implies, "my false self is crucified, it is no longer it that lives, but my new heart that lives. And I am free to do whatever my good heart desires."

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). To live is Christ, not my new heart.

"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom. 7:24-25).

"And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24). This is not a command to crucify our flesh. It assumes that we have already done so.

Notice the distinct differences. Paul exalts Christ and only references himself to the point where he is dependent on Christ ("the life I live, I live by faith in the Son of God..."). Never in the New Testament does Paul or any other writer make any claims of their own goodness. That's not to say they weren't "good", but simply that when it came to talking about themselves, they could only say "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Eldredge is the exact opposite. He focuses entirely on you, and wants you to do the same. When Eldredge has a chance to point to Christ, here is what he does:

Here he is writing in his journal after a wearisome conference, "What of me, dear Lord? Are you pleased? What did you see? ... I yearn to hear from you--a word, or image, a name... This is what I heard: You are Henry V after Agincourt... the man in the arena, whose fase is covered with blood and sweat and dust, who strove valiantly... a great warrior.. yes, even Maximus. And then You are my friend" (135).

Maximus is the main character of Gladiator. Where is the did I honor Christ? Did I exalt Christ in my words and actions? Did I point others to Christ? Eldredge is overly concerned with his image as a warrior, as shown here and several other places in the book. In this book, he makes no great effort to promote holiness, Christ-likeness (except Christ's "wild" side), living a Christ-centered life, etc. It's about you, being self-satisfied, self-fulfilled, self-exalted and definitely not self-denying.

The next post will be on Eldredge's shallow and wrong views on God.

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence? Part 4a

2009-03-03T21:52:00.001-08:00

Today I want to show how Eldredge does not seem to recognize the effect of sin on mankind. Here are a couple quotes:

"I want you to think of the films men love, the things they do with their free time, and especially the aspirations of little boys and see if I am not right on this" (p. 9).

"Capes, swords, camouflage, bandannas and six-shooters--these are the uniforms of boyhood." Same paragraph: "If we believe that man is made in the image of God, then we would do well to remember that 'the Lord is a warrior the Lord is his name' (Ex. 15:3). Little girls do not invent games where large numbers of people die, where bloodshed is a prerequisite for having fun... Boys want to attack something--and so does a man..." (p. 10).

What Eldredge is attempting to say in these quotes, and in the surrounding context, is that these desires stem from being created in the image of God (which he doesn't see as having been marred by sin). Here is a mental picture Eldredge gives of the similarities between God and Man:

God	Man
Loves action/adventure	Loves action/adventure
Crave bloodshed	Crave bloodshed
Love to attack for fun	Love to attack for fun

Eldredge apparently has no concept of the depravity of man. Not that man doesn't sin--he certainly talks about it elsewhere--but that the image of God is still intact in men. Anyone who reads the Bible without using the lenses of Wild at Heart would quickly see that God is not like this.

The interesting thing is that Eldredge would disagree (with the idea that men are unaffected by sin). Over in chapter seven he says, "Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They've had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it's not... Your heart is good." We'll come back to this again tomorrow, but for now let's focus on the dichotomy that Eldredge has created.

On the one hand his whole premise of Wild at Heart is that all men are naturally drawn toward danger, bloodshed, action, etc. Yet on the other hand he acknowledges that once you become a Christian, you get a new heart (which should assume new desires)... meaning that your old heart was sinful. On the one hand, your old sinful heart had all the right desires, but on the other hand, you get a new heart when you become a Christian. My first question would be, if my old heart had the right desires... what's the need for a new one? This is an irreconcilable issue within the book. Except from the following perspective: One can very easily, and truthfully, say that most/many men continue to be drawn to those things even after "becoming" a Christian (but to me, that would be like saying that 95% of Americans believe in God... they may believe in a god, but they certainly don't believe in the God of the Bible. Those men may be "Christian" in the American sense, but not in the Biblical sense). Here is what we'll discuss tomorrow: when you become a Christian, what happens? Or maybe a slightly different question, which I believe Eldredge answers wrongly, how does God see you? What is the change that actually occurs? And furthermore... what is the evidence of being a true Christian?

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence, Part 3

2009-03-02T22:48:00.001-08:00

Today I want to bring up Eldredge's apparent contempt for Christianity and the church "as it currently exists." Here's the [longer] quote from page 7:

"And then, alas, there is the church. Christianity, as it currently exists, has done some terrible things to men. When all is said and done, I think most men in the church believe that God put them on the earth to be a good boy. The problem with men, we are told, is that they don't know how to keep their promises, be spiritual leaders, talk to their wives, or raise their children. But, if they will try real hard they can reach the lofty summit of becoming... a nice guy." (ellipse his) "That's what we hold up as models of Christian maturity: Real Nice Guys. We don't smoke, drink, swear; that's what makes us men."

On page 8 Eldredge quotes Robert Bly, the author of Iron John, "Some women want a passive man if they want a man at all; the church wants a tamed man--they are called priests..."

On page 13: "Compare your experience watching the latest James Bond or Indiana Jones thriller with, say, going to Bible study."

First of all, I am not going to defend the church as though it is perfect without fault. We all know of churches that fail to be faithful to scripture and are, for the most part, not helping anyone. There are two main points I'd like to make based on Eldredge's thoughts: 1) Regardless of what the church teaches, it is man's ultimately responsible for what a man learns, and 2) Eldredge attacks character qualities that scripture teaches.

Churches, by and large, have a great effect on individuals. More often than not, find out what church someone grew up in (or goes to) and you can tell them what they believe. People get saved in churches all the time. But. Who will be judged on Judgment Day? Will it be the church? No. Each individual person will be judged. If a boy walks down the isle at age 6, spends the rest of his life in the pew on Sundays, and at the end of his life can't spell gospel, you're likely to be looking at someone who was never saved. That is no the church's fault. Or, if that same boy grows up having gone to church and thinks that not smoking, drinking, and swearing are what makes a man, then they very like haven't read the Bible. That's not the church's fault. Each person is responsible for their own spiritual growth. I must be careful in saying this, because I don't remember (and that's kind of the point), but I don't remember a single time in the whole book that Eldredge challenges men to study the Bible. He may have. He may have done it multiple times. But I don't remember. Why do I not remember? Because bleeding from every page is the call to get out into the wild, be dangerous, do things your mom wouldn't approve of, watch blood-filled movies. The blame ought not to be focused on the church (though again, it desperately needs improvement), rather the blame should be on men who only blow the dust off their Bibles on Sundays... and many times not even then. Oh if men (and women) would only read their Bibles they would see what a high calling God has for them. And yet, this book and its successors have become the Bible by which many Christians are living (yes, I know some of them). Much more needs to be said, but I must continue on.

I am shocked by the character qualities that Eldredge chooses to look down upon. Keeping promises? Being a spiritual leader? Talking to your wife? Raising your children? Those are bad things? "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." (Eph. 5:25). There are many ways that Christ loves the church. But certainly among those are: keeping His promises, being our Spiritual Leader, talking to us (through His word, being the Word Himself), the Father is our example on how to raise children. If there is anyone who thinks that any of these things are bad things (or unscriptural), please comment on that.

Now, regarding the last quote. This is one of the most telling sentences in the whole book, which explains where Eldredge is coming from. I have not done the numbers, but earlier I flipped through the whole book scanning every page (I was actually looking for this last quote which is on p.13, but I had to go through the whole thing and start over to find it). The number of references to movies and length of time talking about them far outweighs how much he uses scripture like a pickup truck outweighs a motorcycle. It is clear that Eldredge loves what Hollywood puts out ("while there are some good movies, there are many horrible churches"). Each and every reference to a movie is meant to esteem you (if you're a man) and show you how you ought to be like William Wallace (Braveheart appears to be his favorite). I don't have time for it here, but many times he says something to the effect of "Jesus is like Wallace" or "Jesus is like so-and-so." Not a single time does he put Jesus on a higher plane than a fictional, unsaved, blood-spattered, adulteress, sinful man. If nothing else this should be where the Church rises in rage against the book. Our perfect Savior who was slain to die for our sins holds a lower pedestal than ficticous characters in this book. Sure he talks about Jesus somewhat frequently, but he only talks about the instances where Jesus can be seen (or construed using a non-literal translation) to be "wild with rage" or some other such thing. Not once does he make reference to "Jesus wept" or "Summon the little children to come unto Me" or "He had compassion on them" or "The lamb that was slain" or the multitude of other references to Jesus as something other than wild.

Whoa... I'm off topic. This is getting long, so I'll be short. If a man finds more delight in watching a thriller movie than studying the Bible, that does not tell you how God made him, that tells you how sinful he is. I know that I do not enjoy Bible study enough. I do not delight in God as I should. But that does not mean there is something wrong with the Bible. That means there is something wrong with me.

Oh reader, I know I am not an experienced writer nor an expert in the Bible. But I plead with you... my heart is not that you agree with every word that I say. My desire is that you consider what Eldredge is really saying. The next post will likely be on Saturday because I'm going to cover a larger concept. Eldredge teaches in the book that most of your hearts desires are good and need to be set free. He believes that once you become a Christian you get a new heart (which is true, but he takes it to a whole new level), and you become a new creation (which is also true), but that you still have your "false self" (which is not true). I hope you will continue to read, not for my sake, but so that you will be challenged to consider what he (and a great many Christians) believe. Even if you disagree, please continue on this journey with me.

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence? Part 2

2009-02-26T07:19:00.000-08:00

On Page 5 we find the following quote (the second use of Scripture):

"Adventure, with all its requisite danger and wildness, is a deeply spiritual longing written into the soul of man... Where, finally, the geography around us corresponds to the geography of our heart. Look at the heroes of the biblical text: Moses does not encounter the living God at the mall. He finds him (or is found by him) somewhere out in the deserts of Sinai, a long way from the comforts of Egypt. The same is true of Jacob, who has his wrestling match with God not on the living room sofa but in the wadi somewhere east of the Jabbok, in Mesopotamia. Where did the prophet Elijah go to recover his strength? To the wild. As did John the Baptist, and his cousin, Jesus, who is led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Whatever else those explorers were after, they were also searching for themselves... Who am I? What am I made of? What am I destined for?"

Observation #1: There are very few things that scripture tells us is written on the hearts of men (Jer. 17:1; Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:3 to name a few). Adventure is not one of them.

Observation #2: While Moses was certainly in the desert, that's where he lived. His encounter with God was not on an adventure trip, but while he was working. The reason he wasn't in Egypt was not because he was trying to escape comfort and ease, but because he feared for his life after murdering a man.

Observation #3: Jacob also wasn't on a weekend adventure trip searching for his soul. He was on his way back home with dozens of people and his family. His encounter with God wasn't on the living room sofa because he was caravaning.

Observation #4: While it is true that Elijah, John, Jesus, and others went to the wilderness to rest, avoid people, and pray, Eldredge is making up the idea that they were going to search for themselves. There is not a single verse regarding any of these characters where they are trying to figure out how to be a man, who they are, and what they're made of. It definitely appears that Eldridge conveniently slips that in there unnoticed (by most), but he has no basis for saying it.

Eldredge's second attempt to use scripture to support his idea comes up short, in my mind. I do think that there is something about camp fires, hiking, and doing devotions on a lake that is quite special. But on the same token I can have just as good times with the Lord in my living room. Somehow he forgets that there is a major cultural aspect that must be considered. In our day there are designated areas set aside for wild habitat, parks, and forests. Back then the wilderness was everywhere you turned. For someone in the OT to be in the "wild" was no more abnormal than for us to be on the highway.

Tomorrow I'll be posting on his contempt for Christianity and the church "as it currently exists." And how in making his point, he ignore scriptures that teach what he despises.

Wild at Heart: Biblical Evidence, Part 1

2009-02-25T14:09:00.001-08:00

Note: I wrote this series almost three years ago on an old blog. The book came up in counseling class today, so I thought I would repost the 5-part series on this blog.

As I begin this little series of posts I want to reiterate that I do not think John Eldredge is a bad man with bad motives. His motives are to be highly commended. His passion and desire to help men are very admirable and needed among counselors. What I take exception to, at least in these posts, is his use of scripture to support his psychological ideas. These posts are not meant to be thorough and complete, just short, simple, and hopefully, clear.

On page 3 (which is actually page 2 of the actual content) Eldredge begins to make the point that man's heart is "undomesticated, and that is good." (Italics his) The first use of scripture in the book, and in supposed support of this point in taken right out of Genesis. First here is what Eldredge says:

"Eve was created within the lush beauty of Eden's garden. But Adam, if you'll remember, was created outside the garden, in the wilderness. In the record of our beginnings, the second chapter of Genesis makes it clear: Man was born in the outback, from the untamed part of creation. Only afterward is he brought to Eden. And ever since then boys have never been at home indoors, and men have had an insatiable desire to explore." (Italics his, Eldredge, p.3-4)

When I read this the first time my mind said, actually, I don't remember. So naturally I got out my Bible to see what it said: "then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed... The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it" (Gen. 2:7-8, 15 ESV).

Observation #1: Genesis does not make it clear that Adam was made outside the garden, as Eldredge says, it makes very clear that Adam was made before the garden. You cannot be born/made outside of something that doesn't yet exist.

Observation #2: Genesis 2:15 says that God put Adam in the garden to work it and keep it. God's original and primary intention for man was to live in the garden and work to maintain it.

Observation #3: If, as indicated above, God's intention was for man to live and work in the garden, then man's desire to find fulfillment by exploring and leaving the garden/home/work is an attempt to find fulfillment outside of the Father's plan. Furthermore, Adam leaving (or rather, being kicked out) the garden was nothing less than a curse and punishment for his and Eve's sin. It was in the garden that Adam had fellowship with God, not in the mountains (preview for tomorrow's post).

The Bible gives no indication that Adam had any such desire to leave the pristine confines of the garden. Neither should anyone suspect that he did. For such a desire would be akin to that of seeing, walking, and talking with God, yet somehow being unsatisfying and wanting more. Wait... it's that what happened to the Deceiver? Isn't that why Adam and Eve ate the fruit? Wouldn't that be sin in its most hideous form: rejecting Almighty God after experiencing His presence, glory, and goodness?

Please comment one way or the other. I am truly open if I have missed something or misinterpreted something myself (I am fully aware that it is very possible).

“all flesh”

2009-02-24T00:10:00.001-08:00

UPDATE: There is another occurrence of a universal “all flesh” in vs. 19 which only adds to the strength of this argument.

I just finished translating Genesis 6. One of the things that stuck out to me was the repeated phrase “all flesh”. One of the many things I enjoy about translating Hebrew is that we are so familiar with the English text that we miss all sorts of details. But when we get into the Hebrew, everything pops out because you don’t skim over anything. Every dot and line (literally) needs to be considered when translating.

Among other things כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר (col basar, all flesh) is repeated three times in this chapter. The first use (Gen. 6:12) causes interpreters to waver between a literal understanding (“all flesh”) and figurative (“all people”). However the other two uses (Gen. 6:13, 17) is quite clearly literal since it refers to the end result of God’s plan, and the other is clarified to mean everything which has the breath of life under heaven. Having the breath of life is a trait shared by man and beast alike, and both are most certainly under heaven.

The question then is, is the first use limited compared to the other two? In other words, does the first use have a distinct meaning than the other two? Or do they all carry the same extensive meaning?

At this point I lean toward the latter since the only thing that clearly would limit the meaning in the first instance is the interpreter. There is no clear marker of specification that should cause us to limit the first use to only humans. How does an animal “corrupt their way”? Well, lets just say I consider a dog returning to its vomit corrupted (to cite one very minor example).

What’s the import? What difference does it make? It answers the question “why a global flood?”. If all flesh, man, animals, creeping things, and birds, were corrupted, it didn’t matter that man had not moved beyond the Mesopotamian area. It grieved God to his heart, but he decided in his wisdom that it was better to start [virtually] over and even in that demonstrate his infinite grace in allowing Noah and his sons, who had wicked hearts (Genesis 8:21) and all the animals, to survive and repopulate the earth.

Global flood

2009-02-21T22:10:00.000-08:00

I'm reading along in a commentary, and I was struck by Genesis 6:11: "So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.""

Another verse repeats the same idea, but perhaps more forcefully: Genesis 6:17 "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

There are several "global" terms here. "Erets" translated "earth", "all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven", "Everything that is on the earth" (erets). While "erets" can be more limited in its meaning, the context here seems to clearly indicate its global nature.

"Land" in 6:11 tranlates the word "adamah" which is usually much more limited than "erets/earth". If all we had was the statement in 6:11, "global flood" advocates would be on shaky ground, but "local flood" advocates must account for the repetive global references in 6:17. The use of "adamah" does not force a local flood, particularly when other contextual factors expand the meaning. The term is also abstract in that it doesn't necessarily refer to a specific plot of land. Adam was made of the dust of "adamah". The term there is referring to ground in an abstract way. God was not referring to a portion of ground that could be found via longitue and lattitude.

The following question was posted in a comment a while ago: If it is as Scripture and Paleontology seem to suggest that the pre-flood people remained within the Mesopotamian area. What need would God have of wiping out entire animal kingdoms which have never had contact with sinful man?

Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."

It is possible that "all flesh" only refers to humans, but that is interpretive. Whether or not it is limited to humans or includes animal, the point is that God saw that earth and it was corrupt. Man was corrupt, yes, but so was the earth.

Another question: Is the global flood theology born out of exegetical necessity or out of the need to explain the millions of fossil records we see today?

Yes, out of exegetical necessity. What exegetical evidence is there for a local flood that outweighs the texts above (not fossil record). The belief in a global flood was held long before the fossil record was known. Justin Martyr, Theophilus (c. 115-185), Tertullian (A.D. 115-222), Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-389), and Augustine (4th century) are all on record as holding to a world-wide flood. That is only in the period of the Church Fathers (and that's not to say they were the only ones of their time that held this belief).

Science and General Revelation

2009-01-27T13:55:00.001-08:00

Is science a form of general revelation? Most Christians would probably think so. All truth is God's truth, after all. So when scientists say that the earth is billions of years old... it's a truth as valid as John 3:16, right?

Wrong.

I was reading an article regarding psycology and general revelation (Christian psycologists make the argument that the truths of psycology are general revelation that we can use to help people). The article blew that theory out of the water, and incedentally it applies completely to science. So how did the article accomplish this refutation? Definitions my dear Watson, definitions.

The term "General Revelation" has undergone an identity crisis today. Most people probably assume that Truth = General Revelation. Whether that truth comes from science, psycology, history, or whatever subject, any truth that does not come from Special Revelation (Scripture) is considered General Revelation.

There is at least one problem with that: by definition science (of any kind) cannot be General Revelation.

The phrase General Revelation is made up of two words which either separately or together are antithetical to science in their meaning. If by science we think of specific truths that we can discover, test, theorize, and perhaps even absolutize (that's right), then science is neither general nor revelation.

According to Webster's, some meanings for "general" are: 1) involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole, 2)not confined by specialization or careful limitation, 3) belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals, etc. In other words, when we think of the word "general" we understand what that means, and it certainly doesn't mean "specific."

Now it says of "revelation": 1) an act of revealing or communicating divine truth, 2) an act of revealing to view or making known, 3) something that is revealed. In other words, "revelation" is not "discovered." Notice how the receiver of the revelation is passive? The receiver does not contribute any effort to the information being revealed. He simply receives it as that which he could not discover on his own.

Putting those concepts together we find that General Revelation is broad information provided to us that we could not otherwise discover.

Now, that is not the end of it. For now I will only summarize the facts of Scripture and what it has to say about the subject. In essence, the "doctrine" of General Revelation derived from Scripture teaches us that General Revelation is limited in its scope. It is limited in its subject and its impact. The subject of General Revelation is God (Psalm 19:1-6). The impact is that it is enough to damn a person, but not enough to save them (Romans 1:19-20).

That's the scope of General Revelation. It cannot be extended to the field of science and psycology because scientists don't read a book to learn, they test, scrutinize, experiment, hypothisize... do everything it takes to discover that which is unknown.

One final thought. Someone might say (as I mentioned to start) that all truth is God's truth. True enough. The question then becomes, which truth is True? If "truth" is discovered by science or other fields that contradict Scripture, which has the upper hand? "Truth" discovered by fallen man driven under the noetic (sin's impact on the mind) affects of the fall, or Truth clearly revealed in Scripture?

Wait. Don't stop there! What if Scripture isn't clear and our "truth" can fit with Scripture... maybe our understanding of Scripture is flawed!

Indeed, that is possible. However we must ask ourselves: does that thought come from an underlying belief that our discovered truth/theory IS Truth?

Let's say in the field of science. There is no absolute Truth that science can come up with regarding how the universe developed. We can observe the results of the created universe, but we cannot test theories of how it began or how long it took. Yet untested and unproven theories about what happened in the past simply cannot give us definitive proof of what they state. Therefore we are best to stick with the Word of the One who was there and actually caused it himself.

Bible's view of NASA

2009-01-19T22:15:00.001-08:00

"Genesis shows that the sun and moon are not cosmic deities worthy of reverence; the stars are no more than light-bearing bodies that are subservient to the needs of the earth."

K. A. Mathews, vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995), 154.

If this is so, and I have no problem agreeing with it, then the Christian perspective on exploring the universe is that while there is some benefit in terms of increasing our knowledge of God's power and majesty, a lot of the focus is wasted time and money.

Consider all the missions that are trying to find life on other planets and determine what kinds of weather and history those planets have. That is billions of dollars that could have been used on earth, but have been thrown into a black hole. To put it another way, we're spending billions by having robots walk on other planets and wander through space which gives us pretty much useless information in terms of impacting our lives and future, and all the while the government is running out of money and our economy is collapsing. Isn't is wonderful to know what tempature it is on Mars while we can't afford to keep the heat on?

Perhaps that's a bit too harsh. So be it.

Away with asceticism!

2009-01-19T21:35:00.000-08:00

"An ascetic lifestyle predicated upon the notion of an evil body or material world is inconsistent with the Old Testament’s affirmation of the goodness of God’s world, its bounty, and the joy it brings the heart (e.g., Ps 104:15; Eccl 3:12–13; Jer 31:10–14). It is thus an insult to the “Creator of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19, 22). Gnosticism taught that the material world was inherently evil.136 But Paul opposed such heterodoxy at Ephesus by appealing to God’s “good” creation as evidence that all foods were lawful (1 Tim 4:4; also Rom 14:14). Christian tradition recognizes that the material world is distorted by the aftermath of human sin, but it also affirms that it was not always so; the “earth” remains the salvific object of God’s desires, and for the Christian it is subject to the eschatological dominion of the “new creation” entered by faith."

K. A. Mathews, vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995), 147.

Amen!

Understanding ex nihilo

2009-01-17T11:47:00.000-08:00

One creationist statement often made is that the Hebrew word for "create", bara (e.g. Gen 1:1) means creatio ex nihilo, or, creation out of nothing. Unfortunately, this is not true.

The verb itself does not inherently mean that the object being created comes out of thin (non-existent) air. Rather, it is simply puts the focus on the created thing as opposed to how it was created. God is always the subject of the verb, so it does indeed refer to a special kind of creation, but God does use pre-existing material at times.

For example, in Gen 1:26 God decides to "make" (Hebrew, asa) man. Then in the next verse, it says God created (bara) man. We know that God used dust to make man, so this is one of many cases where bara is used of creation with pre-existing materials.

If you have the ability to look up every time the verb bara is used, you will quickly see that in many instances throughout Scripture it simply cannot mean creation out of nothing.

That does not negate the doctrine of ex nihilo, it just means we have to prove it from the context of Genesis 1 and from the rest of Scripture, which I think is easy to do and has been done and does not need to be done here.

Individuality of Adam

2009-01-17T10:42:00.000-08:00

That may be a bad post title, but it was the best I could come up with in five seconds.

Some (many?) believe that Adam was not a literal person. Evangelicals who hold to a form of theistic evolution which regards the beginning of Genesis as non-literal say that, among other things, since the Hebrew word for Adam is phonetically similar (derived?) from the word for ground, the pronoun Adam does not a proper noun of an individual, but a type/species. Probably other reasons are given for holding to this, but regardless the point is that Adam was not a literal person.

Here is a question for those who would hold to this. You can hold to a symbolic or allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but what about the rest of Scripture that refers to Adam as a real person? No, I'm not referring to Romans 5 where Jesus is the second Adam. I'm referring to those oft forgotten lists of genealogies.

Take Genesis 5:3-5, for example. In this genealogy, Adam is not only listed as a father, but is given a lifespan. If you can manage to explain that away and continue to say that Adam was not a literal person, what about every other person in the list all the way down to Noah? If Adam is not literal, at what point do those gentlemen start becoming actual people?

But let's not stop there. You also have to deal with 1 Chron 1:1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:38, 1 Cor 15:45, and Jude 14.

Is the Adam of the rest of Scripture someone other than the "figurative" Adam of Genesis 1-3? If so, what about 1 Tim 2:13-14?

Curious if anyone would have a response, or perhaps this is helpful for you to bring up to others you may know who do not believe in a literal Adam.

BTW, two posts now related to Genesis. I'm just starting a Genesis 1-11 class, and reading several books for it... so more will probably come up.

Local Flood Question

2009-01-16T20:55:00.000-08:00

I just had a question regarding the concept of a local, not global flood. If the flood was local (can anyone define "local"?), then why didn't God just tell Noah to move away and then come back?

Potential response #1: Because Noah had to save the animals.
Rebuttal: Even if all the animals in the "local" region died, surely it would get repopulated by animals coming in by other regions.

Potential response #2: It would take too long to move away and then come back.
Rebuttal: I couldn't find in the text where it says how old Noah was when God told him to build the ark, but at that time it probably took several years(?). Surely it would have been less to time to move himself and his three sons far away and then return. Furthermore, why even return? Why not just inhabit another part of the planet?

Any other ideas? Just curious.

Does Denying Exhaustive Foreknowledge Acquit God?

2009-01-14T22:55:00.000-08:00

The following is a paper I wrote last semester for my Theology I class on the Doctrine of God (otherwise known as Theology Proper). My paper is a critique on a narrow aspect of Open Theism, namely, their attempt to acquit God from being the ultimate cause of evil and sin.

Introduction

Open theism is a relatively new theological perspective which seeks to provide a unique model for how we understand God. At its core are the denial of absolute sovereignty and exhaustive foreknowledge of God, and the affirmation of libertarian free will of man. Openness proponents claim a significant pastoral benefit in that God is acquitted from being the author of sin and acquitted from being to blame for evil and tragedies which occur in our lives. He is also hailed as preserving freedom and allowing humans to make decisions apart from divine coercion. The ensuing debate has created no small stir in the evangelical academic environment. Though a relatively small number of books have been written on the issue, significant debate has permeated theological journals and popular publications.

In denying God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theists have had to deliver a new understanding of prophetic texts where it appears God has at least some level of knowledge of the future. Regardless of which explanation open theists offer, they claim that no prophecy requires exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The purpose of this paper is to examine that claim and determine whether open theists succeed in acquitting God from evil and intervening significantly in human affairs to accomplish his will. My goal is to demonstrate that open theism, far from acquitting God, makes him liable for innumerable sins and forces him to intervene in significant ways such that human freedom and responsibility is significantly damaged. I will examine two prophetic statements which open theists use to advance their position showing how they really do damage to their position.

Before beginning, an important note is in order. Discussing open theism is difficult because a number of issues are interrelated and it is difficult to approach any discussion without assumed presuppositions. For example, in debating whether God has exhaustive foreknowledge it is necessary to establish the knowability of the future, God’s relationship to time, whether God is self-limiting or externally limited, whether foreknowledge requires determinism, etc. Often debates on specific issues go unsettled because both sides operate with different presuppositions which go under-challenged or are entirely ignored. For the purpose of this paper, an entirely open theist perspective is assumed. The question being answered is not whether the traditional model is absolutely correct, but whether open theism can maintain structural integrity in its own framework.

Open Theist View of Prophecy

John Sanders, a major proponent of openness theology, has put forth what appears to be the most common openness view of prophecy. In his book The God Who Risks Sanders explains there are three types of prophecy: (1) conditional, (2) inferential, and (3) absolute. Conditional prophecies are those which are dependent on human actions. They are the if… then… prophetic statements such as Deuteronomy 28 which contains predictions of blessings or curses depending on the obedience of Israel. Nineveh is an example of an implicit if… then... because though no condition is given in Jonah’s preaching, the repentance of the city resulted in the relenting of the prophesied wrath. An inferential prophecy is one where God utilitizes his exhaustive knowledge of the past and present to make a prediction of the future—he infers from the past and present to declare the future. Absolute prophecies are those which God guarantees regardless of human actions. Open theists highlight prophecies where God can act unilaterally apart from human agents to accomplish his will (the incarnation), however they also admit that God can and does override human freedom to accomplish his will (the crucifixion). Such coercion is the exception, not the rule in how God relates to humans. It is this third category which we must investigate further.

Divine Omniscience

Before exploring open theisms claim of absolute prophecy, it is critical to understand their proposal for divine omniscience. My goal here is not to significantly interact with, but to attempt to give a baseline understanding which will provide stimuli for the discussion on absolute prophecy.

The traditional understanding of omniscience in its various definitions has included complete and absolute knowledge of the past, present, and future. Open theists, in an effort to maintain traditional terminology have not redefined omniscience directly, but more fundamentally, knowledge. In essence, open theists say God knows everything any being could possibly know, yet because the future has not happened (i.e., it does not exist in reality), it does not meet the requirements of a knowable fact. In this understanding, the term omniscience can be maintained because it does not limit God’s knowledge of that which is knowable. A brief illustration should suffice. One cannot say that because God does not know about an alternative universe inhabited solely by aliens he is not omniscient. Just as the unreal alternative universe is not a candidate for knowledge as a matter of fact, the unrealized future is also not a candidate for certainty.

This is not the end of the matter, however. Since the future is yet unrealized, it is in a state of potential and possibility. Therefore open theists go on to say that God knows every possible thing that could occur, and even further, the probability level of their occurring. In the context of near infinite potential realities, God has plans which he has made known through Scripture. While he does not know for certain how those plans will come about, he knows all the potential paths to fulfillment and, if all else fails, his omnipotence can be used to accomplish his will. In other words, God cannot be certain how his plans will be accomplished, but he can be certain that they will. With regard to this, Boyd highlights God’s infinite intelligence to the degree that “there is virtually no distinction between knowing a certainty and knowing a possibility. God thus gains no providential advantage by knowing future events as certain as opposed to knowing them as possible.” In other words, though Boyd cannot claim certainty for God (in many cases), he virtually claims it based on God’s intelligence.

While it appears all the major open theists have written in agreement with the above understanding of divine omniscience, there are some who prefer to distance themselves from the idea that the future is inherently unknowable. Dallas Willard advances the view that the future is knowable, but God simply chooses not to know it, much like Jesus chose to limit the expression of his deity while on earth. For the purpose of this paper I am assuming the more common understanding for two reasons: First, I have not found Willard’s view among the most popular open theists (Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd). Second, it appears to “re-tie” the knot open theism attempts to untie. Namely, open theists claim that if the future is a matter of fact it must be determined (actively or passively), therefore libertarian freedom is removed. Because open theism’s primary concern is the preservation of libertarian freedom, the future cannot be determined in any sense. Cuthbertson surmises, “in committing oneself to open theism, one is committed to a certain philosophical position with regard to time.” In other words, in order for open theism to maintain its structural integrity, it must be consistent in its view of time. An open theist believing in a determined future is closer to a classic Arminian, than an open theist.

One final caveat offered by open theists is critical to understanding the framework. Though God cannot know what has not been realized, and though he does know every possibility and its degree of probability, God can determine whatever he pleases for the future. Boyd states that God “foreknows certain things are going to take place because he knows his own purpose and intention to bring these events about. As sovereign Lord of history, he has decided to settle this much about the future.” This is distinct from Willard’s view in that Willard states the future is knowable, but God chooses not to know it. Boyd states that it is not knowable except that which God determines.

Having established the open theist understanding of divine omniscience, we move on to understand and critique open theism’s understanding of prophecies where grand levels of detail are displayed which appear to demonstrate profound knowledge of the future.

Absolute Predictions

In God of the Possible Boyd navigates numerous examples that he considers “Settled Aspects of the Future.” The de facto approach to understanding settled aspects of the future is to conclude that when Scripture speaks definitively and specifically of the future, it does so circumstantially rather than universally. In other words, just because God can give a detailed prophecy (e.g., Peter’s denial), it does not mean that God knows all of the future exhaustively. On the surface it appears that such a statement is correct. No single prophecy necessarily teaches nor entails exhaustive foreknowledge. However when one considers the arguments both exegetically and logically, that conclusion quickly appears to oversimplify what God does when he makes a definite and specific prophecy. The rest of this paper will interact with two examples provided by open theists to show that while exhaustive foreknowledge is not necessary, the open theist interpretations inherit the same criticism given to exhaustive foreknowledge.

Prophetic Statements Which Involve Vast Foreknowledge
Prediction of Captivity

Genesis 15:13-15 records the revelation to Abraham that Israel will be held in a foreign land for 400 years. By analogy, Boyd responds to this prediction by attempting to show that within the boundaries of such predictions, innumerable free decisions could be made without affecting the overall prediction. What food was eaten, marital decisions, attitudes, etc. are all examples which ultimately bear little or no impact on Israel’s 400 year hiatus in Egypt. Boyd’s point comes across clearly, namely, that God doesn’t need to know every decision that everyone makes in order to predict a 400 year exile. Yet Boyd neglects the full prediction which is significantly more specific than simply predicting the 400 years.

The prediction God made is clear and extensive. There are ten aspects that are all interrelated: 1) they will be sojourners in a foreign land, 2) they will be servants, 3) they will be afflicted, 4) it will be for 400 years, 5) God will judge the foreigners, 6) they will be freed, 7) they will leave with abundance, 8) Abraham will die old and before any of this happens, 9) they will return in the fourth generation, and finally, the ultimate reason behind all this, 10) because the iniquity of the Amorites is incomplete. Genesis 15:16 sheds a bright light on the 400 year prediction. God predicted the 400 year exile on the basis of the iniquity of the Amorites. Further, God did not randomly decide to wait 400 years before dealing with the Amorites. He said their iniquity would not be “complete” until 400 years was over. Whatever measure God is using to make that statement, it is difficult to see how one could get around the fact that there are 399 (or so) years where God knows in advance that their sin would not be complete, and then finally he knows that it is complete after 400 years. For God to know this for certain, under the open theist framework, he would have to determine it. For God to determine 400 plus years of sin seems far outside the range of what open theists would want to claim as necessary intervention. This is to say nothing of the eight other details God predicted.

An exegetical issue is worthy of consideration. God’s use of the term “certain” forces us to conclude that this was determined and could not fail. This is not an intelligent guess based on exhaustive knowledge of all future possibilities, this is a certainty. With this much, Boyd appears to agree. Yet one has to question how God could make such a certain and specific prediction without knowing how it would occur. According to open theists, at this point in Genesis God is not yet certain of Abraham’s faith because it isn’t until many years later (Gen. 22) that God finds out for sure that Abraham trusts him. How could God be so certain about the future of Abraham’s descendents in Genesis 15 and yet require such a drastic test of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 22? It doesn’t seem to make sense that God could make a determination while still being uncertain as to the participation of the key player—Abraham. Clearly the answer from open theists is that since God knows all possibilities and their probabilities, he knew that the way things turned out is how they would likely turn out, or at least he knew generally how things would shape up and he would ensure it came together in the end. A more simple answer would seem to be that God was already certain of Abraham’s faith before making the 400 year prediction and the test with Isaac served a different purpose. This seems clear from the previous verses where Abraham believed God “and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6).

Additional details seem troublesome. Richard Rice explains that God reacted to the Joseph’s brothers’ action by using it to preserve the Hebrews from the famine. Yet such an explanation ignores Joseph’s testimony in Genesis 45 when he repeatedly states that it was “God [who] sent me before you to preserve life” (v. 5). It was “God [who] sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth” (v. 7). “It was not you who sent me here, but God. He made has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (v. 8). It was “God [who] has made me lord of all Egypt” (v. 9). After the death of Jacob, Joseph had to reassure his brothers that “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (50:20). The clear emphasis is on God’s initiative through human agents, not his response to them.

The famine itself is troubling in the open theist framework. The entire discussion of God’s lack of foreknowledge centers around human freedom. But a question which open theists have yet to answer is how much does God know about other future events, in this case, weather. The debate over global warming aside, weather is completely uncaused by human action (at least it was back then). Certainly the open theist would claim God can predetermine weather, but we must assume (in the open theist framework) that generally God does not know what the weather will be like in the future. One could be quick to say that God determined the weather when he gave Pharaoh the dreams hoping to get Joseph out of prison, but as mentioned above, Joseph claims that God sent him to preserve life. The reference is, of course, to preserving Israel through the seven-year famine. If God somehow knew about the famine, it must have been before Joseph went to Egypt. According to open theists, the only way for God to know the future is to determine it. Therefore, God must have determined the famine, presumably for the purpose of getting Israel into Egypt. Precisely when God determined this cannot be known. In addition, it cannot be known whether God enjoyed free humans acting in such a way that fit his famine plan, or if he necessarily coerced many actions (e.g. the sin of Joseph’s brothers) in order to get Israel in Egypt. It would seem that the latter must be the case because to imply that God determined a severe weather pattern in order to get a large family (who knew nothing of the famine) to move away from their promised land without any external pressure seems like an odd way to force the move.

The sin of the Amorites, the certainty of the prediction, and the foreknowledge of the famine do not automatically require exhaustive foreknowledge. However, such a significant amount of information of the future is necessary in this prediction that all the charges open theists make against exhaustive foreknowledge such as determinism, loss of freedom, and making God responsible for sin would be necessarily applied on a grand scale in the 500 years or so of history where these predictions took place. No, exhaustive foreknowledge is not required, but the effect of exhaustive foreknowledge (according to open theists) is no different than the effect of this supposedly partially determined plan.

Peter’s Denial

The specificity with which Jesus predicts Peter’s denial is so powerful that open theists have had to come up with plausible explanations. Several different explanations have been offered including an inferential explanation where Jesus knew all the present factors and could predict with accuracy Peter’s response to a certain situation. Sanders mentions how Lorenzo McCabe offers a determined explanation where God purposefully determined the denial and eventual restoration in order to prepare Peter to lead the church. It appears Sanders doesn’t take that position, but prefers a conditional understanding. He explains at length that the denial did not need to occur, and that the prediction was no prediction at all, but a warning about what would happen if he wasn’t careful. Boyd (taking the inferential side) states that “we do not know how much, if any, supernatural intervention was employed in God’s orchestration of the events of that evening. But the outcome was just as he anticipated.” In other words, the prediction could have involved multiple methods of knowing.

According to Boyd, God’s perfect knowledge of Peter’s character in conjunction with the present circumstances made it obvious what Peter would do under extreme pressure. Yet he has not made a reasonable case for such a drastic change in Peter’s behavior. Up until the disciples (including Peter) fled when Jesus was arrested, Peter demonstrated nothing but courage and loyalty. Boyd’s explanation is that Peter assumed Jesus was a military leader and when that expectation was removed he lost confidence. Boyd forgets, however, that earlier in Jesus’ ministry that in the midst of a mass rejection, Peter affirmed his loyalty to Jesus not on the basis of his political aspirations, but on the basis of Jesus’ “words of life” (John 6:68). By the time of Jesus’ arrest, the disciples could only have been strengthened in their resolve that Jesus was the Messiah. Indeed the disciples on the road to Emmaus acknowledged as much (Luke 24:21). Therefore it doesn’t make sense that Peter was utterly predictable in his denial. If anything one would think Peter would have fought the soldiers arresting Jesus to the death had Jesus not stopped him.

Of course Peter’s denial is only part of the prediction. As with the sin of the Amorites, timing is everything. Jesus predicted Peter would deny him “before the rooster crows”. Not once, but three times. “Anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted that under certain circumstances (that God could easily orchestrate), he would act just the way he did.” There are at least two problems with this statement by Boyd. First, no one could have known Peter’s character perfectly in the future. Certainly God could have known it at the moment of the prediction, but Peter was still loyal at the time. Boyd claims (without proof) that Peter’s character was solidified toward predictable denial , but until fleeing, we are given no record of Peter showing any inclination toward desertion. Since there was no prior history, God could not have known for certain how Peter would react under “certain circumstances.” What Boyd is allowing God here he denies from God elsewhere in the case of Abraham’s test with Isaac. Somehow God could predict a totally contradictory act with Peter, but not a relatively consistent pattern with Abraham. As of yet open theists have not answered the question of why Peter did not deny Jesus twice or four times, and how was three times predictable by his character?

Beyond Peter’s character is the issue of the rooster crowing. Certainly nothing in Peter’s character or the nature of the situation precipitated that detail being predictable. It could have taken the entire day to get the three denials. Open theists must fall back on the claim that God simply ordained the timing and therefore could know it in advance. This begs the question: if Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times by the time the cock crowed, did he know what would cause those denials? Did he know that there would be trials during the night and that Peter would be trying to listen in? Did God coerce those who questioned Peter into doing so in order to accomplish his plan? Finally, if Peter’s character was solidified in denying Christ once he realized Jesus was not the Messiah Peter thought he was, wouldn’t that imply a lack of freedom in the denial? How could such a solidified character weep as Peter wept realizing what he had done?

It seems as though the clearest explanation is that Jesus knew exhaustively what would happen. He knew Peter’s unrevealed character, where Peter would be, that Peter would be within earshot of a cock crowing, that Peter would be challenged three times to identify himself, and that he would deny it three times. If God orchestrated (determined) certain aspects to cause Peter to deny him, then God is equally liable to the charges made against exhaustive foreknowledge. God is just as responsible for sin. God has removed libertarian freedom from Peter and those who identified him, making the lesson meaningless for Peter since he had no choice except to deny him.

Conclusion

Open theism stands as a stalwart proponent of human libertarian freedom. Whether limited externally by the nature of knowledge or internally by self-limitation, God is put forth as one who guards human freedom to the greatest possible extent. Open theists have not been convinced by the efforts of scholars who have attempted to demonstrate how exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom (to an extent), and that libertarian freedom itself is an unbiblical position. Yet when faced with intricate prophecies which seem to indicate God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theists simply claim that God can know certain things, and doesn’t need to know everything to make those predictions. They are right to the extent that the text does not make explicit mention of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. But where their explanation falls short is in realizing the extent of information God must know in order to make predictions with certainty. If an entirely determined future does irreparable damage to the God-human relationship, making God responsible for sin, and making humans robots that could do nothing other than what God determined, what of the open God who necessarily determined certain aspects to fulfill his will? Is God not culpable for the sin of Joseph’s brothers? Is he to blame for the massive havoc the seven-year famine caused in the ancient world? Is he not liable for the deaths of the Hebrew children commanded by Pharaoh since he put them there? Is he not responsible for generations of the Amorites whose sin he knew beforehand? Is Peter’s denial genuine since God must have determined enough of it to make it certain? Did those who identified Peter do so freely, or were they coerced by God?

Those who hold to exhaustive foreknowledge have made multiple contributions in books and articles demonstrating how divine exhaustive foreknowledge and human freedom (understood properly) can be compatible. Thus far open theists have yet to significantly challenge those explanations. Additionally, open theists have yet to explain how the open God can determine anything of the future without being culpable of the same charges they make against the traditional view of God.

Modern Day Pharisee

2008-12-15T22:56:00.001-08:00

Though not too often, I have heard comments made to the effect that conservative Christians are modern day Pharisees. With the brief concession that there are some extreme fundamentalist groups (together with their schools) who perhaps could be classified as Pharisees, I am convinced that conservative Christians couldn't be farther from a Pharisee.

At its most basic level, I believe this false accusation is more a compliment to Pharisees than a slam on conservative Christians. Or to put it another way, the accusation greatly misunderstands the Pharisees and places a false (and better than deserved) stereotype on them.

For the record, lets consider Jesus' beef against the Pharisees. There are, of course, a great many passages for this, so I'll just mention two.

1) In 15:1-9 Jesus confronts their fundamental sin: "why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

2) Chapter 23, the famous "woe to the Pharisees" chapter. Let's get some of the highlights from the text:

- v. 4: "They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger."
- v. 13: "You shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."
- v. 15: "You travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
- v. 27: "You are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness."
- v. 33: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

It is obvious that the Pharisees had a lot of issues. Certainly they were human, just as we are, and therefore we share with them in the sins that are common to man. But it must be understood that Jesus didn't cast his most violent and damning speech on them because they were prideful or wanted to be exalted in the eyes of others. Those are surface issues that everyone deals with (even tax collectors and prostitutes). When we deal with issues of pride, fear of man, selfishness, you-name-it, even hypocricy, we are not acting like Pharisees. We are acting like sinful people.

The root problem of the Pharisees that invited Jesus' human wrath and God's eternal wrath was their false religious system. They set up their tradition over and against God's Word. When they read and interpreted God's Word it was selective and only to serve their own purposes. The religion of the Pharisees was not "Judaism" as God had established it through Scripture. Therefore Jesus treated them like a cult who distored Scripture by adding, removing, and modifying it. Pharisees put their hope fully in themselves and their works. They had no room in their theology for God's grace toward sinners. They had no room for mercy. It was follow their rules (not God's), or be the subject of their scorn (not God's).

Are conservatives sons of hell? Do they made their converts twice the sons of hell? Are they full of dead men's bones? Are they unable to escape hell? Do they prevent people from entering the kingdom?

To call conservative Christians the modern day Pharisee is paramount to calling it a false religion.

There is another related issue that needs to be dealt with (briefly, because I have a serious headache). Some have also said that if Jesus came today that we would reject him. I say we would have every biblical right to reject him. Even if someone came with miracles we should remember that the Anti-Christ will perform miracles even to where he could deceive the elect if it were possible. If he came today like he did 2000 years ago (though wearing modern clothing), that means we have completely misunderstood everything and are a false religion. Setting up that type of scenario is faulty thinking. It assumes that Jesus could come in that way again, which goes against our understanding of Scripture. The question is not "would I accept Jesus coming today like he did then," but rather "do I accept Jesus today for who he was then?"

This may require some more development and clarification in a non-headache moment, but for now here is a two-sentence summary:

When we, as born again Christian, sin, we do not act like Pharisees--we act like sinners. We did not kill God's Son as Pharisees. We killed God's Son as sinners. We did not say "This is the heir. Let’s kill him and take the inheritance." The tax collectors did not say it. The Pharisees said it (in the parable told by Jesus). It was said by those who were entrusted with the vineyard, not by everyone. We need to use proper hermeneutics to understand who said what and who did what so we can properly compare ourselves.

If you want an example of what I think is modern day Pharisee, probably the best correlation is Catholicism.

The pejorative term Pharisee should be reserved for people destined for hell who are guilty of the same fundamental sin of the Pharisees, and never used for those bound for heaven.

Book Review: God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware

2008-11-12T10:52:00.000-08:00

“Readers will find this book unkind to open theism” (9). To what extent? “We have [in open theism], then, a fundamentally different god, not merely a different version of God” (230). Such are the opening and closing remarks of a devastating analysis of open theism. Bruce Ware, Senior Associate Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is the author of God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. The book is organized in three main sections: (1) What is it? (2) What’s wrong with it? And (3) what difference does it make? There is one question asked and answered on virtually every page of this book. It is the very question concluding a series of questions presented in the first chapter: “is such a God the God of the Bible?” (18). The answer returns again and again as an emphatic “No.”

The introductory chapter provides the motivation for the reader to be concerned about the issue. Ware details some of the influence open theism has had in Baptist General Conference as an example that this issue is not fortified in the walls of academia, but is in fact finding refuge and strength in congregations around the country. Not all churches have opened their gates to this teaching, as exemplified by the Southern Baptist Convention. Publishers such as InterVarsity Press and Baker Books along with Christianity Today have provided a platform from which open theism has reached the Christian church at large. Though this chapter is focused on understanding the importance of this issue, the analysis of open theism throughout the book solidified this theme.

Theologies usually have some measure of foundation in formerly existing doctrines, and Arminianism turns out to be the foundation of open theism. Ware explains how Arminianism in its traditional expression is seen as faulty in the eyes of open theists because it does not allow for true libertarian freedom. Therefore open theism begins with the Arminian foundation of God’s love, human freedom, and genuine worship, and seeks to be consistent in its understanding of the relationship between God’s omniscience and man’s free will. The reconciliation of God’s omniscience with man’s freedom is the root issue in open theism. Ware explains from the open theist perspective how they perceive traditional models of understanding as faulty, and their own model as viable.

The “perceived” viability of open theism is presented in chapter three as Ware brings forth the primary tenets that open theism attempts to derive from Scripture. The first major principle is that God’s openness allows for real relationship between and people. Because God learns and can be surprised by human actions, he can have a real relationship and not one based on absolute foreknowledge. Secondly, because God does not know the future, everything he does involves some measure of risk. God risked rejection when he created the world for the sake of relationship, and he lost the bet, so to speak. Third, because God cannot always know the outcome of his decisions, it is not uncommon for him to repent as in the decision to flood the world. Fourth and perhaps most important, because God does not know the future and allows people to have libertarian freedom, he is not to blame when tragedy strikes. Here in summary form are the primary issues which Ware addresses in detail throughout the rest of the book.

If one could conclusively demonstrate the fallacy of open theism’s rejection of the doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, the debate comes to an abrupt end. This is exactly what Ware has accomplished in chapter four. Walking through the biblical texts used by open theists Ware clearly shows how the “straightforward” readings by open theists are invalid, either by immediate context or by other texts which directly relate to the issue. The careful attention to the whole counsel of God reveals how open theism must ignore or deny one text in order to affirm a certain understanding of another. At times Ware appeals to logical conclusions using the narrow straightforward interpretation to show how one cannot maintain such ideas without denying other explicit teachings about God.

Contrary to open theist ideas, Scripture has a lot to say about God’s exhaustive foreknowledge regarding the breadth and the depth, the extent and the content of what God knows. Many of these texts are treated in chapter five as Ware unleashes the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. Though space does not allow extensive commentary on each passage, Ware shines the light of the glory of God as demonstrated in his foreknowledge. Open theists claim that often these texts refer to a specific situation, or are limited instances of foreknowledge, and it is going too far to attribute exhaustive foreknowledge. The former claim is certainly true, however Ware demonstrates that in order for God to foreknow and control one, two, and the many situations and prophecies laid out in Scripture, it would take exhaustive foreknowledge because of the infinite number of variables which could alter the future.

In attacking God’s foreknowledge, Ware demonstrates how open theism indirectly attacks God’s wisdom. Chapter six gives a clear and thorough argument against the attack of the only wise God.

The effect of all this in our daily lives is devastating. It actually creates a different kind of Christian; one who can’t pray with confidence, need not ask God for guidance, and does indeed have reason to blame God for tragedy. Chapters seven through nine are dedicated to this and one cannot help but grieve for Christians under open theist pastors.

Reading this book has two effects for the Christian who believes strongly in the deity of God. First, it creates anger and frustration over a doctrine which makes God in man’s image. Second, it causes us in the depth of our soul to worship the God of Romans 11:33-36.

Translation Theory Introduction

2008-11-07T18:56:00.000-08:00

The act of translating of a text from one language to another has been a necessity since the Tower of Babel when God confused the language of the people (Gen. 11:1-9). Though translation has been done throughout history, formal theories of translation—and the resulting debates—have only been in existence for the last century. Until the Gutenberg invention of the printing press in 1456, only 33 of the world’s approximately 6,170 languages had a translation of Scripture. At the end of the 20th century, over 2,000 languages, or 80% of the world, had parts or the entire Bible available to them. The increase from 33 to over 2,000 did not occur gradually. In fact, even 400 years after printing press, still only 67 languages had some portion of the Scripture. The 19th and 20th centuries saw a dramatic increase in missionaries and organizations committed to translating Scripture which naturally demonstrated the need for standard methodology of translation.

There are two primary translation theories which continue to be the center of increasingly fervent debate. Though terminology has varied over the years, it appears the dust has begun to settle regarding what to call the theories: Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence. Much time and effort has been spent on arguing for each position, and I have found it difficult to get a brief synopsis of each side with its proposed arguments. This paper is an effort to allow both sides to make their arguments without analytical comment. The purpose is not to come to a conclusion on which method is superior, but rather to have a fundamental understanding of the arguments for each position.

Key Terms and Definition
Many specialized areas of study have their own set of terms and vocabulary that are necessary to keep in mind in order to navigate the field. Misunderstood definitions often draw needless arguments, therefore where a definition undergirds one side of the debate, I will present the definition from that viewpoint.

Formal Equivalence. Leland Ryken has written the most recent and somewhat controversial book in this debate. He takes his stand on the formal side of the debate and defines it as follows: “a theory of translation that favors reproducing the form or language of the original text, and not just its meaning. In its stricter form, this theory of translation espouses reproducing even the syntax and word order of the original; the formulas word for word translation and verbal equivalence often imply this stricter definition of the concept.” By mentioning the “stricter form,” Ryken hints at the reality that there are varying levels of formal equivalence. The strictest end would be a word-for-word lexical translation which makes no other changes to the text. Such a translation has not been made for distribution, but its closest cousin would be the American Standard Version (ASV) which is considered by all as the most literal translation available. The other end of the formal spectrum would most likely be the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Functional Equivalence. Originally this view was called Dynamic Equivalence but more recent works attempt to leave the word “Dynamic” behind in favor of “Functional.” Eugene Nida is the undisputed father and proponent of the Functional Equivalent method. He defines this method as follows: “[it] consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” Nida immediately states that such a definition requires “careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements.”

Source and Receptor Language. Source or native language is simply the original language from which the translation is based. In the case of Bible translation, it refers to Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Conversely, receptor language is the language which receives the translation.

Transparent Text. This term is used in two different ways, equally defined by both methods. In the context of functional translation, this term indicates that the message of the original text is transparent to the receiving reader. In the context of formal translation, it indicates that the translation is transparent to the original text. In the former, the message is clearly seen, in the latter, the original form is clearly seen. The two definitions are not mutually exclusive, but rather emphasize either aspect of the translation.
Formal Equivalence Method

The practice of translating Scripture according to what we now call formal equivalence has been the general practice of translators through the centuries. Advocates of functional translation methods are quick to point out passages where historical translations veer from the original, yet it is clear that ancient translations are primarily formal in nature. English translations in particular have historically leaned toward a formal translation. Clearly the evidence demonstrates that an unofficial standard of formal equivalence has been the practice of the church. With that historical background, let us now look at the various arguments put forth by advocates of this position.

Arguments for Formal Equivalence
Retaining the words. Words matter. Words are the fundamental units of language. Meaning and ideas are derived from words and are dependent on the words in their individual meaning combined with syntax and grammar. Therefore the most basic and objective method of transferring meaning is to maintain the translated words. Leland Ryken makes the argument that “there is no such thing as a disembodied thought… when we change words, we change meaning.”

Minimal interpretation. Robert Thomas acknowledges that translation does include a degree of interpretation, but it must be avoided “as much as possible by transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the receptor language.” Ryken refers to the needed interpretation as “linguistic interpretation” as opposed to “thematic interpretation.” The former seeks to find the receptor language words which best convey the source language word meanings as opposed to finding a new way of expressing the meaning of the section with or without the same words. The more interpretation that is done in translation, the more the translation becomes a commentary.

Original meaning. Along similar lines with the previous argument that interpretation should be kept to a minimum, is the idea that the translation should convey the meaning of the original text, not the translator’s interpretation of it. The main goal is to give the reader the transparent text of the original so that they can come to their own conclusion when there is a difficulty in the text. This comes to the forefront most on ambiguous passages. It is the job of the reader, not the translator to determine the original meaning of the ambiguity .

Leave it to the reader. According to the formal translation method, if the reader does not understand elements of the original (idioms, theological words, symbols, history, etc.), they should be willing to study or use an aid rather than have a translation that requires no effort. Since it is nearly impossible to know the background of the typical reader, it is best to make the translation transparent to the original and challenge the reader to do the work of interpretation. This not only increases the abilities of the reader, but it also causes them to think carefully about Scripture as opposed to reading quickly when everything is easy to understand.

Objective limits. Perhaps the greatest desire of formal translation advocates is to hide the translator and make the translation transparent so that the original shines through. Formal equivalence places great emphasis on the objectivity which with translation is done so that multiple translators can come up with essentially the same translation. Side-by-side comparisons of multiple formal translations show minimal difference which often come down to linguistic interpretation.
Centrality of the text. When it comes to Scripture as set apart from other books, preserving the original text as much as possible should be the focus of translation. The further translations stray from the original text, the less it can be trusted and ethically deemed the Word of God.

Functional Equivalence Method
The proliferation of missionaries around the world in the last two centuries and the subsequent need for translations in primitive languages has brought problems to the fore that had not been dealt with on a major scale in the past. These problems can be understood best in the form of questions. How do you translate “Lamb of God” when a tribe has no concept of sheep? Is it legitimate to invent words in a language which has no corresponding word for “justification”? Do you maintain a literal translation of an idiom when that same idiom has a completely different (and undesirable) meaning? In response to these and other questions Eugene Nida, in conjunction with Wycliffe Bible Translators and other organizations, has developed the functional equivalent method of translation. The functional method of translations elevates meaning over form and reader over author.

Arguments for Functional Equivalence Method
Meaning is everything. “Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message.” To do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator.” Mark Strauss states it more bluntly, “Every translation must change what is said (in Hebrew and Greek) to capture what is meant.” No two languages have a one-to-one correspondence to any significant degree. Therefore in order to maintain meaning, it is necessary to leave the source language form behind and find a meaningful form in the target language which will carry the same meaning.
Provoke a response. Scripture was not written to convey facts and truths with no impact to how we live. Therefore translation should seek to invoke the same response for the modern reader that the original hearer experienced. In other words the translation should have the same impact at the outset.

Simple, not complex. God has given us his revelation for us to understand. It is the translator’s responsibility to translate it in such a way that people can easily understand without aid. In addition there are settings where study aids are not available such as an oral reading. The translation must relieve the text of ambiguities and statements or forms which can be understood more than one way so that people can hear and respond to the Word. Nida puts it this way, “If we assume that the writers of the Bible expected to be understood, we should also assume that they intended one meaning and not several, unless an intentional ambiguity is linguistically 'marked.'”

Respect the language. Those who work on the front lines of Bible translation on the mission field are keenly aware that every language is unique. Each language has its own “word-building capacities, unique patterns of phrase order, techniques for linking clauses into sentences, markers of discourse, and special discourse types of poetry, proverbs, and song…” A functional translation takes this into account and seeks to form a translation as though it were native to the receptor. Readers of the translation should not feel like they are reading a translation.
Respect the originals. Hebrew and Greek are languages like every other language. They suffer from the same limitations, ambiguities, and cultural influences. We must not treat them as though they are divine languages to be preserved for eternity. Rather, we must recognize that God communicated in the language of the people in the original writings, and as faithful translators we must translate into the modern language of the people with the receptor’s own idioms, grammar, vocabulary, and syntax.

Priorities. When we commence translating God’s Word, we must have priorities as to who the target readers are. Whether the readers are scholars or children will make a significant difference in the vocabulary and structure used. For wide-distribution translations, certain priorities must be kept in mind. Non-Christians should have priority over Christians. There are two simple reasons for this: (1) intelligibility allows Scripture to be an instrument of evangelism, and (2) it prevents Scripture from becoming obscure “high church” language. The second target age is 25-30 as opposed to children or older adults. The reason is that older adults who are used to a generational language understand terms and phrases which have gone out of use for decades. On the other hand children have a limited vocabulary and are not able to recognize literary features very well. People ages 25-30 have the established English skills and the current vocabulary which generally bridges the gap between all ages. Finally, there are times when the language of women needs priority over that of men. While this would not apply in the United States as much, foreign countries often have a “work-place vocabulary” that women are unaccustomed to. In these cultures where women remain at home, it follows that they teach the children. Therefore the women must understand the translation best in order to instruct the children.

I have attempted to demonstrate the primary arguments put forth by each side of the debate. In my research I have discovered that there are issues which need to be addressed more in order to think more critically. One unanswered question is whether the principles for translating into an established language with a tradition of Bible translations should be the same as translating into a language which has not previous translation and perhaps no literature tradition at all. Another question is whether translating Scripture should have different principles than other forms of literature, particularly since proponents on both sides believe in plenary inspiration.
There is one issue to which all parties agree: translating and spreading Scripture is a high calling and we must apply all diligence in the process. Whether it is supplying a Gospel to a native in Mongolia who has only the Quran, or whether The Gideons are supplying Bibles to hotel chains across the world, the Word must get out by the hands of faithful men.

Review: The King James Only Controversy, by James White

2008-10-28T00:26:00.001-07:00

James White is a professor and apologist who tackles issues thoughtfully, clearly, and most of all, biblically. The King James Only (or AV Only) controversy is becoming more rare and at the same time more intense as modern versions increase and fundamentalist churches decrease. White admits that rebuttals against AV Only advocates have been written before, but confesses the need for a “broad response to the general claims” (VI) of the AV Only group.

The first chapter sets out to treat the opposition fairly by making a distinction between five general positions in the AV Only camp. This is extremely helpful since too often debates tend to polarize positions as either completely right or completely wrong. The first two or three groups are moderate and would not give rise to this controversy. However the final two groups (“The Inspired KJV Group” and “The KJV as New Revelation”) are the predominate positions and are the focal point of the controversy. It is primarily the arguments of these two groups to which White responds.

Chapter two provides a brief but helpful history of Bible translation from the Septuagint to the King James Version. The primary point of this chapter is to demonstrate that each translation began as revolutionary and eventually became tradition. Jerome’s Vulgate caused an uproar in its time for breaking from the traditional text, then Erasmus created a not so insignificant stir in creating a Greek translation which many thought undermined the then traditional Vulgate. Erasmus’ Greek New Testament became the foundation of the King James Version. As White states, “He who once resisted tradition has become the tradition itself” (17). It is essential to understand the tradition and truth are not synonyms, and while truth never changes, tradition does.

With the various positions and brief history in place, White moves on to provide a foundation for understanding the technical aspects of the debate. Manuscripts, text-types, variants, and other related topics are covered clearly and succinctly. Such information is academic and scholarly in nature, but essential in this debate and White does a superb job explaining the concepts without losing the reader. Often an incomplete treatment of these issues can result in a mistrust of the text we hold in our hands, but White carefully explains how God has preserved the text with very little variation throughout the ages.

The fourth chapter takes the concepts learned previously and takes the discussion to the next level showing how translators decide what variants to use from the different manuscripts available. It also allows the translators to speak for themselves by quoting the preface of the 1611 edition of the KJV and demonstrating that even its translators acknowledged the need for improvement. By asking questions and allowing the translators to answer through portions of the preface White draws out the method and perspective which produced the KJV. He further points out how through many editions the KJV has been revised and corrected primarily with regard to spelling, punctuation and other relatively small changes. However for those who hold to an inspired KJV, White points out that this is a significant issue.

The center of the book, chapter five, is the most disheartening section of the book. In it White gives the unfamiliar reader a broad overview of the popular writings and proponents of the AV Only position. Though Christians disagree and debate over many issues, it is typical for such debates to be relatively cordial, respectful, with the various positions giving reasonable explanations. In the overview which White provides, the AV Only advocates act abusive, disrespectful, unreasonable, and altogether unbecoming as Christians. Misrepresentation, out of context quotations, poor logic, and name calling appear as staples in the arguments White draws out.

Chapters seven through ten of the book deals with the types of differences between the KJV and modern versions. The first type is a difference of translation. White walks through a number of examples that AV Only advocates cite as changes, deletions or additions to the text. He shows how in many of these cases the difference is a legitimate translation which does not in any way change the meaning, and in many cases the modern version is a better rendering that makes the meaning more clear.

The eighth chapter focuses on differences which arise from a textual choice (drawing information from the textual criticism chapter). White goes through how it was determined by modern translators that the Textus Receptus contained a reading which was not original to the text. In many cases modern translators have decided to use a different source text other than the Textus Receptus for any number of reasons believing that the alternate reading was more original. Even in these cases a footnote is often placed to notify the reader of such differences. White ably navigates this sometimes complex field again demonstrating that modern versions have no evil plot behind them, but only a devotion to the text as it was originally written.

One of the major arguments stated by AV Only proponents is that modern versions try to denigrate the deity of Christ, his participation in the Godhead, his Sonship, and even his own name. White clearly shows how these allegations are false and at times could be turned on their head.

The final chapter of the book brings out the difficulties within the KJV itself. These include extremely poor translational choices, the change of terms which cause confusion to modern readers, and even anachronistic terms (Easter, rather than Passover). These problems notwithstanding, White’s desire is not to denigrate the magnificent accomplishment the KJV represents or even discourage people from using it. His single goal is to combat those who claim that it is the only translation you can use while still calling yourself a Christian.

If there were one asset and liability to this book it would be its thoroughness. To the previously unconvinced reader this book supplies more than enough evidence to give a reasoning believer confidence in the preserved Word of God in multiple translations. But to the already convinced reader this book can feel like using sledge hammer to drive a small nail into the wall. There is almost too much information for those who want to take it and “use it” against a KJV advocate. Rather than using what I learned in a personal discussion, I am more likely to simply recommend or give the book to someone who is interested. I am thankful James White has taken the time to treat this subject with care and precision so that even the most uninformed person can pick up this book and benefit from it.

Book Review: Worldly Saints, by Leland Ryken

2008-07-01T22:09:00.000-07:00

As one who has not been exposed to the Puritans perhaps beyond quotations in sermons, I found this book to be very insightful, thought provoking, and encouraging. Based on formidable research, Leland Ryken has demonstrated clear understanding of the thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and passions of the Puritans.

Much of what we hear regarding the Puritans from the public sector is filtered through the values and morals of a secular mindset. In this book Ryken has allowed the Puritans to be understood on their own terms. Throughout the book Ryken goes beyond the external manifestations and seeks to uncover the foundational values and worldviews that provide the motivations for their actions.

If one were to ask what was the most prominent fact about the Puritans that stood out to me I would quickly reply how pervasive the Bible was in their daily lives. Without arguing over particular interpretation and application, one cannot fault the Puritans for their pursuit to understand and apply Scripture in every area of life. Ryken soundly debunked stereotypes popular in public education that the Puritans were strict broods for the sake of it, that they lacked mercy, compassion, and anything we would consider fitting to decent human beings.

One of the biggest strengths of this book is the proliferation of original source quotes. While it would be very easy to proof text and make points from a few isolated phrases, the abundance of quotations on virtually every subject make it clear that the views expressed therein ought to be taken as representative of the whole, unless otherwise noted. It is important to note that the quotes are not taken from a few select authors who meet the criteria, but by a massive slew of authors. Taking a look at the Index of People in the back of the book makes even one who has just finished the book astounded at what they have just read.

Another strength of the book is its organization. With each chapter covering one of the major aspects of life everyone faces (e.g. work, marriage, money, family, etc.), Ryken was able to go in depth with each topic and view it from various angles and perspectives. He often brought in the perspectives of the reformers, the Catholic Church, and Anglicans to show how the Puritans differed (in the case of Catholics and Anglicans) or were in continuity (in the case of the reformers) with them.

The biggest weakness I found in the book was that in chapter eleven where Ryken addresses some of the negative aspects of Puritans, it almost undid everything he wrote in the first ten chapters. Because he covers the major faults in one chapter, he isn’t able to get into much detail as to how the faults weigh against the positive aspects. I think it would have been better to temper all the positive statements throughout the book with some minor qualifications along the way. Reading the first ten chapters you get the feeling that the Puritans more or less were the ideal Christian culture. Then chapter eleven leaves one wondering if the idealism was completely lost in practicality.

A related weakness that I found interesting is that chapter eleven focused on the Puritans’ weaknesses with the view to what we could learn from them. The majority of the book speaks descriptively about the Puritans, yet in the chapter on their faults, the focus changes slightly to an instructive tone. Perhaps one could make the argument that Ryken is not giving the faults a fair representation among the massive amount of positive recognition. To be fair, he is trying to swing the pendulum away from a complete focus on the negative and often false representations.
Overall I enjoyed the book and found it be inspiring in how Christians should be living as a body of believers, sharing their possessions out of care for the poor, using their riches to further God’s kingdom, instructing children in the Lord, educating from the foundation of Scriptural truth, and working in a way that glorifies the Lord. It makes me look forward to reading some Puritan books I’ve recently received.

Alive, Part 2 of 2

2008-06-30T19:35:00.000-07:00

The first question Paul answers in Col 2:13 is in what way did God make us alive? The answer is simply, “God made [you] alive together with him.” Taken out of context it would seem that God, being the nearest antecedent to the relative pronoun, makes one alive together with himself. Yet in context it is quite clear that him refers to Christ. Paul’s entire argument in 2:8-2:15 is based on the position of the believer with Christ who is part of the Godhead. Therefore we find the following anthem, “you have been filled in him… In him also you were circumcised… having been buried with him… you were also raised with him… (2:10-12).” Add to this the final statement about Christ in 2:12 that Paul made, “God, who raised him from the dead.” Immediately after this statement Paul launches into 2:13 with the death and resurrection of the believer with him, namely, Christ. Eph 2:5 dispels any further doubt by explicitly stating that God “made us alive together with Christ.” To fully understand how God makes a sinner alive with Christ, the Righteous one (1 Jhn 2:1), Paul answers a second question: what means did God use to make us alive?

Paul provides two means by which God made us alive. The first means is “having forgiven us all our trespasses (Col 2:13).” The word Paul employed for forgiveness is not the common Greek word (ἀφίημι). Instead Paul used χαρίζομαι which has the idea of “to forgive, on the basis of one’s gracious attitude toward an individual (Louw-Nida, 1:502).” Whereas ἀφίημι displays “God as the Judge to whom man is responsible (TDNT, 1:512),” χαρίζομαι demonstrates God as “gracious by forgiving wrongdoing (BDAG, 1078).” God’s grace has not just forgiven us of sin in general, but particularly all our sins. God has taken account of each sin committed and has graciously forgiven each one.

The second means is the cancelation of debt by payment. The word ἐξαλείφω (canceling) is quite unique in the New Testament . Peter used the same word when he preached at Pentecost saying, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted (ἐξαλείφω) out (Acts 3:19).” The concept the word conveys the idea “to remove so as to leave no trace, remove, destroy, obliterate (BDAG, 344).” This word is also frequently used in the LXX in reference to sin. Perhaps the most significant occurrence is in Isa 43:25: “I, I am he who blots (ἐξαλείφω) out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” The Psalmist cries out to God to “blot out my transgressions (Ps. 50:3, 11),” but “not the sin of his [the wicked] mother (Ps. 108:14).”

What did God blot out? “The record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands (Col 2:14).” This record of debt (χειρόγραφον) is a hand-written certificate of debt whereby the signer acknowledges his obligation the debt and agreement with the consequences (TDNT, 9:435). It is as if at some point the sinner gives God a signed promissory note listing all the sins he has committed and prescribed penalty (death) for defaulting on the loan. In saying “that stood against us” Paul pushes the metaphor further by claiming that the “document in question was one of condemnation (Dunn, 165).” The due date had passed and the loan was now in default. When God makes the sinner alive, rather than requiring immediate payment of the debt, he removes the debt completely without a trace. Lest the reader accuse God of keeping unbalanced books, Paul quickly explains how God can cancel the debt and remain just in His action. Paul very simply states: “this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” This is a clear reference to the practice of nailing the indictment of the one crucified on the cross for all to read (Dunn, 166). Though Jesus’ cross did not literally have our sins attached for all to see (it could not contain them!), God figuratively nailed them there and they were seen by the only one that mattered—God.

God could justly cancel the debt because it has been paid for on the cross. Paul wrote in Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Jesus paid for the “legal demands” of our promissory note, and therefore God wiped away our debt and gave us life.

Having gone through this passage we conclude by comparing it to Eph 2:1-9 which is a parallel passage where Paul essentially teaches the same truths with a slightly different focus. In Colossians Paul briefly states the former condition of the believer and moves on the emphasize the gracious forgiveness provided by the cross. In Eph 2:1-3 Paul extensively describes the former state of the believer, and sharply contrasts it in 2:4-9 with the God’s grace. He describes God as being “rich in mercy”, having “great love”, demonstrating “immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us.” Twice Paul repeats “by grace you have been saved (2:5, 8).” Paul’s theme in Eph 2:1-9 is you are saved by God’s grace, and by God’s grace alone. The theme in Col 2:13-14 is God has done away with the instrument of death, and has given you life. Put another way, in Ephesians Paul emphasizes God’s grace in salvation (rescue from the former way of life), and in Colossians he emphasizes God’s grace in regeneration (removing the dead nature, and giving new life).

In meditating on these truths the believer cannot help but stand in awe of God’s mercy. As we continue to struggle with sin in our earthly bodies, sin which has been done away with and forgiven, we eagerly hope for the coming King who will transform us to be like Him and will finally and completely do away with sin. To God alone be the glory!

Alive, Part 1 of 2

2008-06-29T14:21:00.000-07:00

When Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, Jesus challenged Nicodemus’ soteriology. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (Jhn 3:3).” Nicodemus, wondering how a man could produce this for himself asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born (Jhn 3:4)?” Jesus confronts Nicodemus’ works-righteousness by declaring, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Jhn 3:6).” Nicodemus wondered how a man could make himself be born again, and Jesus taught him that only the Spirit can convey spiritual life.

Though Paul was not present during Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, he was nevertheless very aware of this concept and used it frequently in his writings. Yet there is particular one passage where Paul explains the means by which God has makes man alive. After Paul pointedly reminds his readers in Col 2:13-14 of their sin induced state of spiritual death, he makes it clear that because sin is the cause of death, the only way to bring life is to remove sin. Therefore when God produces spiritual life in a person, he forgives that sinner’s trespasses; not by means of averting His eyes to sin, rather by accepting the payment made on the cross.

The grammatical structure in Col 2:13-14 is such that v. 13 contains the two primary clauses: (1) “you who were dead”, and (2) “God made [you] alive together with.” This essay will focus on the second clause which is followed by supporting clauses in vv. 13-14 which the answer two questions: (1) in what way did God make “you” alive, and (2) what means did God use. Of first importance is to understand what Paul meant by God “made alive together with” which is based on a single Greek word συζωοποιέω.

Paul coined a new term to describe the believer’s relationship with Christ. συζωοποιέω which is translated “made alive together with,” has only one other use in Eph 2:5 which is virtually an exact parallel. This form of the word συζωοποιέωis found nowhere else in Greek literature, which testifies to its unique soteriological significance (see next paragraph). The prefix συ emphasizes our “identification with the risen Christ.” In examining ζωοποιέω without the prefix, we find that the giving of life is a Trinitarian activity. In Jhn 5:21 we find that the Father and the Son give life to whomever they will. Implicitly Rom. 8:11 teaches that the Father (“he who raised Jesus from the dead”) gives life. Finally, 2 Cor 3:6 teaches us that the Spirit gives life. We know that the Father is the one who gives life in Col 2:13 because the surrounded context (2:8-15) portrays Christ as a participant, not as the initiator. It is important to note that “God initiates the salvation process, because spiritually dead people cannot make themselves alive (MacArthur, 109).” When Jesus resurrected the dead to life during His earthly ministry there was no initiative coming from the corpse. Lazarus was totally incapable of doing anything until Jesus commanded him to “come out (Jhn 11:43).” A corpse has no cognitive ability to even think about doing anything. Therefore God always takes the initiative when He gives life to a dead sinner.

Dead, Part 3 of 3

2008-05-30T20:46:00.000-07:00

The second condition Paul states only in Ephesians 2:1: “dead in trespasses and sins.” “Sins” (ἁμαρτία) is the most general word for sin in the Greek and therefore it is difficult to find any critical distinction with παραπτωμασιν. Lincoln argues that παραπτωμασιν and ἁμαρτία are in hendiadys as plural synonyms and that it “helps to convey an impression of the immensity and variety of the sinfulness of the readers’ past.” Best agrees stating “there is no reason to doubt that the words are synonyms.” MacArthur gives helpful meaning to the hendiadys, “Paul does not use the two terms here to point up different kinds of wrongdoing but simply to emphasize the breadth of the sinfulness that results from spiritual deadness.” Ephesians 2:2 continues the singular idea from the previous verse with “in which you once walked…” This would seem to remove the possibility of the second condition stated in the introduction, but a distinction must be made between the hendiadys here and Paul’s use of “dead in trespasses” in Colossians 2:13 where no hendiadys is found.

The final condition in Colossians 2:13 translated “uncircumcision of your flesh” is very unique in the New Testament. Many commentators, such as John MacArthur and Matthew Henry , see this phrase as indicating the physical state of uncircumcision as either literal (MacArthur) or symbolic of being outside the covenant people (Henry). However, a number of observations indicate a different conclusion. A metaphorical understanding of circumcision is common in the Old Testament where the Israelites were often accused of an uncircumcised heart. This Old Testament use is carried over into Acts 7:51 and Colossians 2:13. Just prior to making this statement, Paul reminds the reader that they were “circumcised in Christ with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ (2:11).” Paul is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense, applying physical terms to a spiritual reality. Despite its irregularity in the New Testament, the context weighs heavily on the meaning favoring a non-physical circumcision. What, then, does it mean to be uncircumcised in the flesh? Zemek helpfully concludes σαρκὸς (flesh) is a reference to the unregenerate human nature. Additionally, Paul describes our circumcision in Christ as “putting off the body of the flesh (2:11b).” Therefore, “uncircumcision of your flesh” means to have the mechanism of our unregenerate sinful nature attached. Put another way it is the natural state of sinfulness prior to experiencing the regenerating work of God.

Paul wrote the darkest picture of the unbeliever. They are not influenced by sin, merely inclined to it, not even highly prone to it. Paul teaches in these two verses that the unbeliever is spiritually dead because of the sinful nature of their soul which is manifested in acts of sin. Paul adds to the bleak picture by preceding his descriptions of man with a glorious picture of Jesus as the living and reigning One. The sinner is left hopeless and in complete dependence on God to do a saving work, which is exactly what the Apostle Paul intends the reader to understand.

-------------------------------

As a reminder, this series is taken from a paper I wrote for theology class. Thankfully the professor thought I did really well!

Dead, Part 2 of 3

2008-05-29T21:57:00.001-07:00

In examining the phrase translated “dead in your trespasses,” we find the Greek text having “dead” (νεκρους) as an adverb to οντας (stative verb), which means that deadness here is the defining characteristic of the state of being. Scripture teaches that death is not limited to bodily existence, but is a way of describing the relationship between one state of being and its opposite. In the parable of the prodigal son the father exclaims, “my son was dead, and is alive again (Luke 15:24),” meaning that his absence was death, but his presence was life. Jesus told a hesitant disciple, “leave the dead to bury their own dead (Matthew 8:22),” indicating that to follow Him was life and to stay behind was death. Paul exhorts believers to “consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11)” because Jesus “died to sin (v. 10)” so that believers would no longer be enslaved to it (v. 18). Each context defines death not by the absence of physical life, but by the worst possible condition compared to the desired state of being. Therefore when Paul uses this term in our primary texts, he depicts the worst possible condition the unbeliever could be in due to his trespasses, sins, and the uncircumcision of his flesh.

Paul states the first condition of the unbeliever in Colossians 2:13 and Ephesians 2:1 (the latter in hendiadys) that the unbeliever is “dead in trespasses.” According to Bauder, παραπτωμασιν (trespasses) “emphasizes strongly the deliberate act … with its fateful consequences.” Many passages substantiate this by inferring intentional sins such as Matthew 6:14, 15 and Romans 5:15-21. This second passage is worth considering. In it Paul makes the direct correlation of “one man’s [Adam’s] trespass [παραπτωμασιν]” to the result that “many died.” Put another way, “by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners (5:19).” The end result is that “sin reigned in death (5:21).” Yet Adam’s sin perpetuated to all people such that none could blame Adam for their own death: “death spread to all men because all sinned (5:12).” Therefore Adam’s παραπτωμασιν began the cycle of death, but each person’s own παραπτωμασιν continues the cycle of death. This is what it means to be “dead in trespasses.” The question then becomes “how does παραπτωμασιν (trespasses) relate to ἁμαρτία (sins) in Ephesians 2:1?”

Dead, Part 1 of 3

2008-05-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

I haven't received the grade on it yet, but I'll post in a series format a paper I wrote on the condition of the unbeliever.

In the Apostle Paul’s letters to the Christians of Ephesus and Colosse he reminded them of their spiritual state before experiencing new life in Christ. Their former separation from God was due not only to their sinful behavior, but also to their very nature as sinners. Paul chose particularly vivid phrases to ensure his readers would understand the degree of their depravity and the extent and effectiveness of God’s grace. This essay will examine the unique phrases Paul used to demonstrate the condition of the sinner before God. Every unbeliever has an unregenerate sinful nature which is expressed by active sinful behavior.

Both Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 are significant in this discussion because of their similar wording and equivalent meaning. In Ephesians 1:15-23 Paul verbalizes his prayer for the believers, concluding it by extolling God’s power in what He has done in Christ giving Him authority over all things (vv. 20-23). Colossians 2:8-12 begins with Paul exhorting the believers to stand firm in the truth because of who Christ is and who we are in Christ. When the reader arrives at our texts, there is a striking contrast between Jesus and the unbeliever. Jesus is above “all rule and authority (Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10)” and in whom the “immeasurable greatness of [God’s] power” was demonstrated in Christ (Eph. 1:19-20; Col. 2:12). The unbeliever is “dead in the trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1),” and in “the uncircumcision of [their] flesh (Col. 2:13).” These passages contain three phrases that define former condition of believers: (1) dead in trespasses, (2) dead in sins, and (3) dead in the uncircumcision of their flesh. Before looking at those phrases, it is important to ask, “what is death,” which will be tomorrow's post.

Something to boast about

2008-05-27T09:06:00.001-07:00

Ephesians 2:8-9 is a popular verse for people who believe in election. According to the verse the purpose of making it not the result of works, is so that no one may boast.

What is interesting is that those on the other side of the issue maintain that their own free will choice which brought about their salvation is no basis for boasting. I have never met anyone on any side of the issue who was proud of their ability be saved because of their own decision. However that doesn't mean that pride isn't there.

I have met several who, when challenged with the idea of election, display their pride in full force because they made the decision to be saved. True, God gave the grace, but they made the decision. God saved them because of their decision.

Another display of pride in salvation is displayed in one's attitude to the unresponsiveness of others to the gospel. Often people pray and witness faithfully to friends, family, and co-workers, but wonder why don't they get it?, or why can't they see it? The underlying assumption is that the gospel is simple truth (which it is) which people should be able to undertand. However they forget Romans 8:7-8 which says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." As believers, we did not "get it" or "understand" the gospel. It was not our uninfluenced rationality that led us to believe in Christ. It was God's enablement and grace that caused us to believe.

Pride doesn't mean walking around gloating that one is saved. Pride in salvation is the refusal to ascribe to God the full extent of the work He has done, and take undue credit for oneself.

Which came first?

2008-05-24T21:11:00.000-07:00

The most common view regarding election in American Christianity today is that God foresaw who would accept the gospel, and then choose them. The order being man's choice led to God's choice.

Yet there are two passages that seem to contradict that view:

Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

Notice the order, it does not say those who believed were appointed, but the opposite.

John 10:26 "but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock"

This time on the negative side, those who are not part of the flock, do not believe, not the other way around.

Something to think about and study if you hold to the popular view. Thoughts?

The First Sin

2008-05-16T09:34:00.001-07:00

When preaching on Genesis 3, I have always heard preachers condemn Eve for "adding" to God's word. God said, "do not eat of the fruit", Eve said, "Do not eat or even touch it".

The problem with that is this: if Eve added to God's word saying something He didn't say, nor intended to mean, then Eve sinned. And if Eve sinned, then that was the first sin, not disobedience in eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The implications of that are huge. That would mean sin was possible before the fall (the fall universally attributed to eating the fruit). If sin in the world before the fall, then Romans 5:12 (mouse over to read) if wrong.

What really happened in that garden that day?

The best solution is simply this. Eve understood the meaning of God's command, and was not a literalist. She understood God didn't mean that they could touch it, play with it, etc. God intended for them to stay away from the tree. Have nothing to do with it! This is not to say that touching the fruit necessarily broke the command. Eve simply employed the principle of "how far from the line can I stand" instead of "how close to the line can I get without crossing over".

Therefore rather than condemning Eve for "adding" to God's command, we should commend her for understanding the force of it, and follow her example to not be literalists saying, "God didn't say I couldn't do this...", but rather take the position of "what can I do (or not do) to please God the most?"

God's Sovereignty

2008-05-16T09:32:00.001-07:00

Here is a good definition of God's sovereignty:

This is the essence of God’s sovereignty; His absolute independence to do as He pleases and His absolute control over the actions of all His creatures. No creature, person, or empire can either thwart His will or act outside the bounds of His will.

Jerry Bridges, Trusting God, page 36

Sermon Mis-match

2008-05-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

I've begun to pay attention to sermon titles. Sometimes it tells you something about the philosophy of ministry, sometimes it doesn't. Othertimes it just makes you wonder what the pastor was thinking.

One example would be a pastor I know (love and respect as a friend). If you look at the listing of his sermons on the website, you notice two oft-repeated words: "How to". The comforting part to me is that if you listen to the sermons, they are not the typical "how to" sermons you think of. They are generally good expository sermons... it just happens to be that he titles his messages quite often with "how to".

Another example would be my pastor, whose sermon titles read like the section headings in your Bible, usually with a "Part #" attached to the end. Nothing wrong with that either... just the way it is.

Yet there are many who feel that they have to title their sermons like you would a newspaper story, hoping that the title itself will make someone interested in listening. Personally I find this a bit odd since no one is likely to leave if they don't like the title of your sermon, nor are they more likely to stay if they know it. I seriously doubt people check the title of the sermon before deciding whether to go to church.

Today I listened to a sermon with this title "Cleaver vs. Simpson". The subtitle is "Busting the Myth of the Perfect Family." While many churches would offer sermons where the content would largely reflect the main title (with many illustrations of the Cleavers and the Simpson), this one did no such thing, thankfully. Instead, after a few introductory remarks the speaker (I have a hard time calling some people pastors or preachers when they don't preach the Word) said almost verbatim, "The Bible says that God is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in love." Then he went on about how we need to be like God and gave a number of illustrative examples of what the means in our lives.

To some degree the practical aspect of the sermon was fine, but I was highly disturbed by the fact that the did not tell the listener: 1) where in the Bible it says that, and 2) why it says that.

The where is very important because almost everyone thinks that in the Old Testament God is mean, wrathful, quick to judge, kills everybody, doesn't forgive, etc. But in the New Testament God is gracious and merciful and loving and all the good fluffy stuff. What people need to know is that when God described Himself in the Old Testament, He said, "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7). What is amazing is that this is literally within minute of almost wiping out the nation of Israel and starting over with Moses. Therefore when God describes Himself that way, we need to ask how can he say that, and be right?

There is an answer, and people need to be shown. This is the why that I mentioned before. People need to be shown because they don't have a mental picture of a gracious Old Testament God. Telling someone that in the Old Testament God is merciful and gracious is like telling a three year old right after he has been spanked that daddy loves him! If that three year old's recollection is limited to the moment of discipline he will not accept the love of the father. People need to know what God does in the Old Testament that qualifies Him as compassionate.

Another issue is that in the New Testament we find many passages that go something like God did this, so you must do that. Case in point would be 1 John 4:19 (hover over to read). If you just say God is love, so you should love, there is no experiential backbone to that command. It is a legitimate command, but it has less power than if you say, "God has forgiven you all your sins, therefore you ought to forgive others."

This particular speaker didn't give any Biblical examples of what makes God compassionate, merciful, full of love. I left the sermon without any reason to thank God for who He is, and felt very uncompelled to do anything myself because God was not put on display.

Reflections on Grace

2008-05-07T19:27:00.001-07:00

I would like to spend a few posts reflecting on what I have learned this semester, and even this year. It is a bit surreal to consider that at this point I have completed one year of seminary. Just one year ago, though we were living here, I had no idea what to expect. Having only heard stories of "this will be the hardest thing you've ever done" and "I got really tired of averaging four hours of sleep", I assumed those were universal experiences. And while it must be kept in mind that I purposefully made sure I did not over burden myself, I have not found either of those statements to be true for my experience thus far.

There is something to be said for going from vaguely knowing what Hebrew looks like, to being able to coherently translate and read it. Yesterday I recited Psalm 23 to my professor in Hebrew, which at the beginning of the semester seemed nearly impossible. But in the grand scheme of things that has very little importance when gauged against the backdrop of what the Lord has done in my life.

From one perspective you could say that I know more than I did one year ago, even a lot more. Yet the reality is that I know less because I have learned that there is a vastly greater amount that I don't know.

Many have said that seminary is a spiritual life killer. That focusing so much on the academics will frustrate you spiritually. I suppose that would be true at most seminaries where the academics are the highest prize. But you know you're in a good place when your professors encourage you to place grades several rungs down on the priority list. The Lord, family, ministry, perhaps then grades.

If I had to pick one thing that has been unexpected, it would be the reality and extent of the gospel. Consider Colossians 2:13-14, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your heart, God made alive together with Him having forgiven us all our trespasses, by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross."

I memorized this passage about a month ago, and I can't seem to get it out of the forefront of my mind. I was laying in bed the other night unable to sleep and this passage popped in my mind. Have you stopped recently to consider how much God has forgiven you? Did you notice in that passage that God nailed the record of debt with its legal demands on the cross? If He nailed it (passed tense) on the cross (past, completed, never to be repeated event), what does that mean for the sin you committed yesterday? This morning? Tomorrow?

We often think of God forgiving us of our "big" sins. Perhaps things people know about or perhaps not, but sins that by some measure are relatively large. Yet even the sin we commit when we speak with a harsh tone out of frustration, a fleeting thought of anger, a moment of pride, the words we speak when our mouth is driving faster than our minds, the times when we should be tapping someone on the shoulder and encouraging them to walk away from a situation, and we don't. These and many more sins that we sometimes awkwardly pass off, Jesus paid for with His blood.

This is not a revival of guilt, this is the context of God's sovereign grace.

Indeed the question is not how could a loving God let people go to hell?, but rather how could a holy God let me live and not punish me for what I have done?

So in this moment of reflection, I stand in awe of God's grace in my life to save me, make me alive in Christ by having forgiven me of not only my debt, but also the penalty for my debt.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.