WOE TO YOU

Lately I find myself wondering how often people imagine they are rejecting Christianity when in fact they are only rejecting pseudo-Christian beliefs, heresies, or the "traditions of men". 

I have seen videos on YouTube of atheists who have been exposed to Calvinism and it has hardened their hearts towards God. They will say, "I can't believe in a God who would create billions of sentient creatures incapable of knowing Him, only to torture them forever in Hell."

And I want to scream, "You don't have to believe in that god - that's not the God of Scripture!"

Speaking of hell, I have often heard atheists who reject Christianity based on the widespread belief that when Jesus speaks of people "perishing" without Him, that He means they will endure conscious eternal torment. Billions upon billions of years with no end.

These people are turned off by churches which use hell as a scare tactic to drive people towards God. And you have to admit, it is the scare tactic to end all scare tactics. (And occasionally it works - though if it creates a quality disciple, it's a fluke.) 

But what a shame. In rejecting fear-mongering Christians, these unbelievers will never take the opportunity to see what Scripture actually teaches about God's judgment.

And when it comes to judgment, who can fault nonbelievers for rejecting the notion that God poured out His wrath on His own Son in order to satisfy His own justice, holiness, and glory. (That scenario results in quite a stretch for each of those three words, isn't it?) 

They call is "divine child abuse" for the Father to inflict this on His Son. And we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss their objections. 

When people reject Jesus because of doctrines which aren't even supported by the Bible it is utterly tragic.

I believe THIS is exactly why false teachers are so roundly condemned in the New Testament. THIS is why Jesus got so angry with the Pharisees and their ilk:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” Matt 23:13

By nature, I prefer to "live and let live", but doctrines that cause seekers to stumble need to be confronted as fiercely as Jesus confronted the Pharisees. 

(By the way, we can add Matthew 23:13 to the long list of proof-texts against Calvinism. "What do you mean, Jesus, by speaking of people who are “trying to enter the kingdom”? You seem to have forgotten people are either in or out. There is no trying!" In a Calvinistic paradigm, if the Pharisees are shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces, their action is redundant - God shut that door Himself before the foundations of the world!)

SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE

I have spent the last two or three years tracing the connections linking commonly held Christian doctrines back to the Scriptures. I have been surprised at how often those connections are little more than threads. Sometimes they are nothing but a "rope of sand", to borrow a phrase from George Whitefield.  

In taking a "show me in Scripture" attitude toward various doctrines, I have learned more in these past three years than in three years in seminary. (It's cheaper, too!)

I started with Calvinism. That was fairly easy to let go of as unscriptural because, although I was tempted by it a few times throughout my life, I never  bought into it. Still, some of Calvinism's frameworks have seeped into Christianity as a whole, so I still find some Calvinist gunk gumming up my inner theological gears.

Next I moved on to Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell. The picture of God pouring out unlimited wrath on his own creatures just never sat right with me. I hoped it was unfounded in Scripture and I believe now that it is. (Of course, that means I have to be open to the possibility that my rejection of "ECT" isn't just an exercise in confirmation bias.) 

Lately I am taking a closer look at Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This one has caught me off guard because I wasn't aware that there was any disagreement on this. PSA is the idea that Jesus purchased humanity's pardon by taking all our sin upon Himself and suffering the Father's wrath on the cross in our place. I am sure I will be writing more about this in coming days, since writing is how I process my own thinking these days. Suffice it to say for now that I am finding PSA has some major philosophical baggage while also enjoying less clear support in Scripture than you might suppose. 

Anyway, in one sense my newfound spirit of investigation has been scary.

But mostly it has brought new vigor to my spiritual life. 

And for that, I am thankful. 

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE

It's not how he would have planned it, but ...

Looking on the bright side, the Apostle Paul begins the meat of his letter to the Philippians by outlining positive effects of his recent imprisonment. 

Just because he has been sidelined from preaching and teaching the gospel of Christ freely as he might under ideal circumstances, doesn't mean the gospel itself has stalled.

In fact, his chains are serving the interests of the gospel in 3 powerful ways:

1. The name of Christ and the good news of His coming to set men free has been the talk of the palace. Paul has the opportunity to witness to a whole bunch of people who were otherwise unaware of Christ.
2. Local brothers and sisters within the church body are feeling emboldened to share the word of God fearlessly. Seeing their leader in chains for the crime of evangelism has prompted them to take to the streets themselves. That's counter-intuitive but it's also how people are.
3. As Christ is being preached, up and coming leaders are revealing their character. Some are trying to be helpful in Paul's absence. Others are using his absence as an opportunity to audition for the limelight, hoping to supplant his position of authority. 

In the end, as long as the gospel is spreading, Paul is happy. 

1:12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that my circumstances have actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 And most of the brothers, confident in the Lord by my chains, now dare more greatly to speak the word without fear.

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains.

18 What then is the issue? Just this: that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, 19 because I know that through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, my distress will turn out for my deliverance.

DISCONNECT

Like any sort of ideology, I suppose, Calvinism's biggest problems are obvious from the outside but invisible from the inside. 

One of its biggest problems is the clear disconnect in the character of God which results if Calvinism is true. 

Calvinists claim a "high view" of God. They focus on his glory and power and sovereignty. 

And his anger and wrath.

His mind is made up about humanity (and has been from the beginning): everyone deserves eternal torment.

(Except for a handful of pre-chosen individuals who will be given grace and love, irresistibly - in order to show what a great and glorious God He is.)

This is the eponymous God of Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. 

Like Edwards, Calvinism itself envisions a God who holds each human soul over the pit of hell as a man would dangle a spider over a fire, only too happy to drop the disgusting creature to its destruction and be done with it. 

This, anyway, is how God the Father operates.

God the Son? Well, he's quite different. 

God the Son is meek and mild. He comes not to be served, but to serve and to lay down his life. And He weeps over Jerusalem's unwillingness to come to Him. And He feels pity for the people who appear to Him as sheep lacking a Shepherd to guide them. 

And this disconnect between the Father and Son is odd considering the Son was sent by the Father and only said what the Father told Him to say. 

And that He was called Emmanuel - God with us.

And that He was God's word made flesh.

And that He was and is the perfect representation of the Father.

And that He told the crowds, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father"?

So why the disconnect? Why does God look and act and speak so differently in the flesh than from the throne room of Heaven?

It's a mystery!

LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE

Phil 1:9 - And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight.

I think Paul is praying for the Philippians to grow in their love of God. And the more we know God and gain insight into His character, the more we are going to love Him. 

Gaining Knowledge of God can happen through Bible study, worship, preaching, prayer, and Sunday school.

But it can also happen any time and any where. 

I remember distinctly a beautiful moment I had at a gas station as I was filling up my car. Very routine. I was just out of college and living and working in southern California for a few months.

I don't remember where I was going or how long I had been out, but I must have been missing my college friends. I was thinking about my best friend, Mark, in particular.

Mark and I enjoyed a friendship that was solid and deep and tumultuous.  

I say tumultuous because Mark had what you call a “bad temper”. He would admit this himself. Today he is totally mellow – and that’s not just the influence of living in California, it’s God’s work in his life.

Anyway, we were good friends, but even as nice of a person as I am, I would occasionally poke the bear, usually unintentionally. Over the years, I had provoked Mark to cuss me out now and then and to physically push me around. Once Mark had left me a message on a post-it note on the top of my dresser – held in place with his pocket knife.

Anyway, I tell you all that to say that in spite of it all, I still loved Mark and I missed him. 

As I was thinking about fact as I stood that night in California beside the gas pump, out of the blue I heard God saying, “You know how much you love Mark in spite of his flaws? I love YOU so much more … in spite of all of your flaws. I know every single one and I love you anyway. I want you to know: you do not love your best friend more than I love you.”

That was all He said. But as I got back behind the steering wheel, something had shifted noticeably in my faith.

I had always struggled with believing that God loved me. Now I knew something about God that I had only hoped for in the past.

I have no doubt today that gas station moment altered my life. 

"I'M PRAYING FOR YOU"

Haitian hospitals and Haitian jails have this in common: Meal service and other basic necessities are not provided by the staff. 

Thankfully, I never had reason to spend a single night in either one, but I have this on good authority. In a Haitian hospital, the hospital’s role is to provide a roof overhead, a bed, and a doctor. I knew of a man whose wife was having contractions and he had to leave the hospital to shop for sterile water, latex gloves, and other supplies to take back to her doctor. 

If you needed to spend several days in a hospital in Haiti, your family and friends were responsible for bathing you and feeding you. Nobody else was going to do those things for you. There was no hospital cafeteria and no cleaning crew. The most disgusting bathroom I have ever seen was in a Haitian hospital. (I will spare you the details.)

I never saw one firsthand, but I am told Haitian jails, likewise, provide only the basics: a place, a lock, and some guards to keep everyone in line. Nothing else. If you are a prisoner, you better have someone on the outside who cares enough to visit you and bring you some rice and beans on a regular basis. 

I had never given it much thought, but the prisons of biblical times had to be similar arrangements. Remember Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25? It’s a picture of Judgment Day and Jesus the King says to the gathered sheep, “I was hungry and you fed me; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and in prison and you visited me.” And the sheep answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? Or naked and clothe you? Or sick or in prison and come to visit you?” And the King replies, “Whenever you did it for the least of these, you did it for me.”

I doubt Jesus' original audience would have envisioned that visitation of the sick or imprisoned as stopping by to say hello and have a pleasant chat. He was obviously talking about ongoing care. Tending the body and spirit of a hurting, broken, and lonely person.

I bring this up because I have been studying Paul’s letter to the Philippians. 

It’s a letter written from a prison cell. Scholars debate what city Paul was in at the time he wrote the letter. (Paul found himself in a lot of different prisons!) Some think he wrote the Philippians from Rome, some from Caesarea. There is good reason to locate it at Ephesus though.

If he was in prison in Ephesus, Paul was writing to a church 250 miles away as the crow flies. (If Rome, 800 miles. If Caesarea, 1,400 miles.) 

I mention the distance because the main occasion for Paul’s writing was to thank the Philippians for sending financial support along with one of their own, a man named Epaphroditus, who brought the money and his own presence to take care of Paul’s needs while he was in prison. 

Here is Paul, locked up and dependent on others to care for and feed him and this incredible gift arrives from the church he planted in Philippi! Can you imagine the joy. (And Paul's joy over the church's compassion and generosity would not likely fade quickly.)

So the love and fondness Paul expresses in the opening of his letter to the Philippians is deep, heartfelt, and genuine.

Take a look at how Paul starts his letter in verses 3 through 6:

3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 

The context explains Paul's gratitude, his joy, and his reason for considering them to be partners in spreading the gospel. 

His theology explains his confidence that the Lord was going to bring them all to spiritual maturity in His time. (Which is what a lot of the remainder of his letter addresses.) 

LOVE ABOUNDING

Paul's letter to the Philippians is different from many of his other letters in that the church in Philippi was not in the midst of any sort of serious controversy nor under threat from false teachers. 

Things were pretty good and normal there. In fact, he wrote to thank them for supporting him financially and sending one of their own to help him while he has been in prison.

Paul begins the letter with gratitude for the church there in Philippi and he lets the congregation know that he prays for them regularly.

And then he tells them what he prays and why:

1:9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

Maybe the Philippians knew exactly what Paul meant, but his prayer leaves me with a lot of questions!

It makes sense that he prays primarily for their love to grow since love is central to the Christian faith. 

But love for whom? For God? For each other? For the lost world?

I suppose it is safe to assume Paul had all three in mind. 

He wants to see their LOVE grow, in general. 

But Paul specifically wants their love to grow in 1) knowledge and 2) depth of insight. We don't usually associate "knowledge" with love. Emotion and passion, yes, but not knowledge. Not "insight". 

But for the Christian, there is much to learn - about God, about human nature, about forgiveness and grace. 

I heard an atheist recently say that religion is a bunch of brainwashing that needs constant reinforcement and that's why churches want their people to gather weekly for preaching and teaching.

What one man calls brainwashing, another calls education. And it seems to me that for believers - those who are coming out of the darkness and into the light - there's a lot to learn.

In fact, it seems to me that we as believers are called on to learn a whole new take on reality itself. 

Teaching and preaching and Bible study and prayer are all avenues for learning about reality - from the One who created it and knows it best. 

It's easy for me to get caught up in theology and Bible study, driven by curiosity and the desire to understand. But I need to keep in mind that learning is not the end goal.

The end goal is always greater love. 

APOSTLES AND PROPHETS

When you grow up in church, there are obvious things contained in the Bible that are too familiar to see. 

I was listening to a podcast the other day and the host was quoting a passage from Ephesians 2:

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

I had never thought of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles as being equal in status and having similar roles until I heard Paul mentioning them together here in verse 20. 

The prophets were tasked with pronouncing mysteries and pointing God's people toward their coming salvation. On the other hand, the apostles pronounced the fact that the people's salvation had come, and they spent time explaining the mysteries which accompanied that salvation

The prophets spent much of their time correcting the behavior and attitudes of God's people, Israel, while the apostles spent time guiding and correcting the behavior and attitudes of Christ's Body, the Church. 

What's weird is that we so often think and preach that these apostles were ordinary men who became disciples of Jesus, but we don't give a lot of thought to the ways they were special and called to special tasks and given special insights and special power at various times.

The thought gives me pause over preaching on something like Peter walking on water as an example for us as modern disciples to emulate. 

Do we need to mentally differentiate between Peter as a disciple and Peter as an apostle in the making? If so, how? Does it matter?

Just something new for me to chew on a bit. 

THE REDUNDANCY OF THE DEVIL

At least one other of John Wesley's philosophical issues with Calvinism's understanding of predestination is worthy of consideration: the God of Calvinism - in determining to damn great numbers of men and women and children from before the foundation of the world - makes Satan redundant. 

If Calvinistic predestination is true, Wesley explains, "one might say to our Adversary the Devil":

"Thou Fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in Wait for Souls is as needless and useless as our Preaching. Hearest thou not, that GOD hath taken thy Work out of thy Hands? And that he doth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy Principalities and Powers, canst only so assault, that we may resist thee: But he can irresistibly destroy both Body and Soul in Hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable Decree, to leave Thousands of Souls in Death, compels them to continue in Sin, 'till they drop into everlasting Burnings. Thou temptest. He forceth us to be damn'd. For we cannot resist his Will. Thou Fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not, that GOD is the devouring Lion, the Destroyer of Souls, the Murderer of Men?"

He's got a point, right?

Wesley here illustrates one of the most useful roles of philosophical arguments in theology: revealing how a systematic can neatly tie individual prooftexts together while failing to account for vast swaths of Scripture. 

What is Satan's role in Calvinism?

Tempter? Humans are already totally depraved and unable to do any good.

Deceiver? Everything that happens is decreed by God.

Accuser? God's mind is already made up - these few are going to heaven and all others are going to hell. 

In Calvinism, the Devil is redundant.

 

IT HAD TO BE MESSY

Working on an exegesis paper this week over Paul's letter to the Philippians. It's due on Friday, but I haven't made much progress yet beyond reading through the letter as a whole several times and looking for the overall structure.

The thing that has struck me with the most force so far is the repetition of "Christ" - the Greek χριστός, "the Anointed One", the "Messiah". 

It shows up in the first verse, the last verse, and 36 other times in between! Seems like Paul has a lot to say about Jesus as the Christ here.

Although we have grown up familiar with talk of Jesus being the Christ, I am certain Paul had his hands full in developing a helpful Christology for his 1st century audiences. 

I think it's really difficult for modern Christians to grasp all of the drama left in the wake of the small band of Jesus followers who went about proclaiming Him to be the long-awaited Messiah, God's Anointed. 

Especially since Jesus Himself hadn't been interested in fulfilling the role everyone assigned to the Messiah in their imaginations.

Then you add a wave of Gentiles coming into this new community of believers and the Gentiles don't even know what a Christ is.

And everyone coming at these theological discussions assuming they already have it figured out and everyone else is wrong.

What a mess! 

GUT CHECK

This is kind of funny. Kind of sad. And also, kind of a valid point.

John Wesley firmly rejected the Calvinistic "doctrine of predestination", saying it presented "GOD as worse than the Devil: More False, more Cruel, more Unjust." (From his sermon Free Grace)

"More False; because the Devil, Liar as he is, hath never said, 'He willeth all Men to be saved.' More Unjust, because the Devil cannot, if he wou'd, be guilty of such Injustice as you ascribe to GOD, when you say, That GOD condemned Millions of Souls to everlasting Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels for continuing in Sin, which for want of that Grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid; And more Cruel, because that unhappy Spirit [the Devil] seeketh Rest and findeth none; so that his own restless Misery is a kind of Temptation to him to tempt others. But GOD resteth in his high and Holy Place: So that to suppose him of his own mere Motion, of his pure Will and Pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his Creatures, whether they will or no, to endless Misery; is to impute such Cruelty to him, as we cannot impute even to the great Enemy of GOD and Man."

In my opinion, these are all valid philosophical arguments against Calvinistic predestination.

The term "predestined" only occurs in Scripture four times. Twice in Ephesians 1 (in verses 4 and 5) and twice in Romans 8 (in verses 29 and 30). 

And here's where it gets funny and sad: Wesley didn't have an alternative to the Calvinist interpretation of those verses. He didn't know what they meant. 

But that didn't slow him down! 

He said, "Whatever that Scripture proves, it never can prove this (that God is worse than the Devil). Whatever its true Meaning be, this cannot be its true Meaning."

And if the Calvinist asks Wesley, "What is its true Meaning then?"

His reply is thus: "If I say, I know not, you have gain'd Nothing. For there are many Scriptures, the true Sense whereof neither you nor I shall know, till Death is swallowed up in Victory. But this I know, Better it were to say, It had no Sense at all; than to say it had such a Sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the GOD of Truth is a Lyar. Let it mean what it will, it cannot mean that the Judge of all the World is unjust. No Scripture can mean, that GOD is not Love, or that his Mercy is not over all his Works. That is, Whatever it prove beside, no Scripture can prove Predestination."

In other words, "I don't know what those verses mean, but I know they can't mean what the Calvinist has in mind. And it would be better to say that these verses are simply nonsensical than to say they show God loves some people and hates others." 

Wesley is not going to win a debate with that argument, but you have to admit there is some validity to looking at someone's interpretation of Scripture and saying, "I'm not sure exactly where you went wrong, but my gut says you are in left field." 

A lot of heresies could be stopped from spreading with a simple gut-check on the hearer's part. 

P.S. A lot of Calvinist preachers - like John Piper and R.C. Sproul - admit to having the same gut revulsion to Calvinism when they were first exposed to it. But they somehow learned to live with it when presented with a stack of prooftexts. 

P.P.S. Wesley may not have figured out an alternate interpretation for Ephesians 1 or Romans 8, but many others have. (Wesley was honestly no better at exegesis than the typical Calvinist is.) It took me 20 minutes one winter morning to get a grip on Ephesians 1 when I was barely out of college - just me and my Bible. 

A PLACE FOR PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS

I agree with those who say that Calvinism needs to be defeated on the grounds that it is unscriptural. The Calvinist's misreading of the Bible is the doctrine's most fundamental and grievous error. 

But that doesn't mean we should avoid discussing objections which are philosophical. 

One can explain how the context of a Scripture passage disqualifies the Calvinist interpretation or one can present solid exegesis of a passage showing the presumed evidence for Calvinism evaporates on closer inspection, but ... the Calvinist's presuppositions remain in place. 

In my experience, little to no headway is made through Scriptural arguments.

Which is sad. Every Christian should be pursuing correct and accurate interpretation of God's word no matter what the cost to his or her established presuppositions.  

Most of us would say we are doing just that, but few of us actually do it. 

So Scriptural arguments often go absolutely nowhere.

A philosophical objection, on the other hand, has potential to get the ball rolling in the right direction. 

If you can present a philosophical issue capable of breaking through presuppositions, it may cause the Calvinist to pause, to reflect, and - perhaps - to return to Scripture on his or her own for a closer reading.

For example, I once asked a Calvinist friend, "Why do you think God hates so many people?"

He was appalled at the thought that God would hate anybody. "What do you mean?" 

"Well, according to you, He has created gobs of people with the sole intent of allowing them to live a few years on earth - many of them in quite miserable circumstances - and them damning them to hell for eternity. Surely you can't say that He loves those people. Not in any meaningful way. In fact, it seems like the sort of thing you would only do to people you passionately hate."

His response was, "I will have to think about that." 

Yes, please do!

LOOKING FOR GOD

There is a quote I came across some years ago that struck me as so true that it has become a firm part of my spiritual understanding of life.

Although the internet has collectively decided that G.K. Chesterton said it, I recently discovered the quote originated in a 1945 novel by Scottish author Bruce Marshall called The World, the Flesh and Father Smith.

In one scene in the book, Father Smith is confronted by a worldly woman looking to confirm her skepticism about faith. In the course of their conversation about his vows of celibacy, the woman concludes that "Religion is only a substitute for sex".

Father Smith's response encapsulates a truth worth contemplating and holding onto: “I still prefer to believe that sex is a substitute for religion and that the young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God.”

“Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror,” declares the Lord. “My people have committed two sins: 

They have forsaken me, the spring of living water,

And have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.”                              - Jeremiah 2:12-14

PASTOR FRANCIS

Here's an article I am working on for our next Mission Resource newsletter:

Together, Our Reach is Great 

Pastor Francis was waiting when we stepped off the ferry along the shore of Lake Volta. I was with Emmanuel, our Director of Mission Resource Ghana, on a cross-country tour so he could show me the true reach of this ministry. It’s not obvious at first glance!

Francis, one of our loan officers and a loan recipient himself, was eager to introduce me to the 55 clients in his care.

Being a Mission Resource loan officer has given Francis a reason to reach out to the isolated communities around his home village of Salaga as well as a tangible way to help the poor who live there. As loans have been distributed, new churches pop up in Francis’ wake. He has planted 10 churches in his corner of Ghana, raising up leadership as he goes! 

Many of those churches are now regularly supported by men and women in those congregations who are finding financial stability and growth because of the loans which power their shops, food stands, and fishing boats. Francis told me that many of our clients prioritize tending to the needs of their church over making improvements to their own houses. 

That is because these brothers and sisters in Christ recognize their Mission Resource loans for what they are: the work of the Lord in their lives. 

Pastor Francis standing in front of new construction at one of his churches.

THE LAW INSTRUCTS

Why was God’s Old Testament Law so harsh?

For instance, did God really command that children who cursed their parents be put to death? (Lev 20:9) How is that just? How often was the death sentence meted out for disobedient children?

Maybe such questions have nagged at your faith as well.

Bible scholar Michael Jones has put together a fascinating video on this topic and it can be found HERE on YouTube. (28 minutes)

Here’s a summary of some key points Jones makes:

• Ancient Near Eastern cultures and worldviews were very different from our own. This distance can create misunderstanding on our part.
• The Law was most concerned with establishing and maintaining order. 
• The Hebrew word “Torah” that is translated as “Law” means “Instructions” or “Teachings”. It was meant to shape the priorities and ethics of God’s people after His own; it didn’t necessarily determine the rulings of judges.

In other words, the Old Testament Law was meant more for the classroom than the courtroom. It is meant to be delighted in and meditated on.

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or set foot on the path of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers.

But his delight is in the Law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. - Psalm 1:1-2

AN ANALOGY OF AN ANALOGY?

Over and over I hear Calvinist preachers use the story of the death of Lazarus in John 11 as a spiritual analogy for salvation.

They say, "We are dead in our sins - dead like Lazarus. And when you are dead, there is nothing you can do to be born again. You lie there and wait. And Jesus comes to those whom God has elected and calls them from their spiritual death into new life just as Jesus called Lazarus forth from the tomb."

There are several problems here, but one is that this leaves the Calvinist layering one analogy on top of another analogy. 

Jesus says unbelievers are dead, yes, but He is speaking figuratively. 

In Luke 9:60, Jesus says, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.”

This is a case of figuratively dead people being left to bury people who are literally dead.

And in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father proclaims his joy at having his son back saying, "This son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found."

The son in that story separates himself from the father who loved him and the father sees it as a figurative death. 

(I rarely hear a Calvinist preach on the Prodigal Son story, but when they do, they typically bring their assumption that this son represents an elect person because he already belonged to the father.)

If you are determined to read the Lazarus story as a spiritual analogy, the most logical parallel is not being born again to salvation, but rather the physical resurrection of believers to eternal life.

THAT has the advantage of making sense of the context of the story and makes it an analogy of a physical reality rather than an analogy of an analogy.  

P.S. Another issue for Calvinists intent on using Lazarus to represent salvation: Death is not the only analogy Jesus used in speaking of the spiritual state of the unbeliever. He also used "illness": “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)

TWO LISTS

Galatians 5:

19  The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; 20  idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, 21  and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

These 3 verses are part of the passage I plan to preach this coming Sunday. I am just in the beginning stages of sermon prep but the first thing I note here is that this is a very odd list.

I almost wish Paul had divided these "acts of the flesh" into two separate lists. 

I could imagine it going something like this:

Paul leads with "Those who practice sexual immorality, idolatry, sorcery, drunkenness, and orgies will not inherit the kingdom of God!"

As you and I and the rest of the good Christians hear the first list, we unanimously shake our heads and give a little "tsk-tsk-tsk" under our breath along with a small gasp of horror and disapproval.

But then Paul continues, "Neither will those who lust, practice hateful behavior, who sow discord, are jealous or easily angered, or those who foster divisions or who harbor envy of others!"

At this completion of Paul's list, our eyes drop to the ground, avoiding Paul's gaze and there's nothing but silence ...

SUCH GLORY

One of the questions often posed to Calvinists is this: If God is the one electing certain individuals to salvation, why not elect everyone?

The typical answer I have heard is something like "God is glorified in exercising his wrath and judgment on some and glorified by offering his grace to others."

This is a major theme of John Piper's teaching. God is all about his own glory - and rightly so because he is God.

So I googled "how does damning people bring God glory", because I was curious to see if Calvinists have any Scriptural basis for this idea that God gains glory by damning people.

The top article that popped up on Google was from Piper - no surprise there. 

And Piper is slyly honest. Regarding Scriptural evidence, he writes, "The closest thing that I know to an answer in the Bible is found in Romans 9:22–23."

Read these two verses carefully and tell me if - even with no other context - they actually say what Piper wants them to say:

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Do you notice that Paul is talking about God enduring with great patience certain people deserving His wrath in order to make known the riches of his glory for those upon whom he is having mercy?

I guess maybe that's why Piper says this is "the closest thing" he knows as to how the damnation of anybody brings glory to God. 

That's not close enough, in my estimation.

That doesn't stop Piper for concluding that God "gets glory because his grace and mercy shine more brightly against the darker backdrop of sin and judgment and wrath, and our worship and our experience of that grace [as the elect] intensifies and deepens because we see we don’t deserve to be where we are."

So, just to make sure we're straight on this: this god brings billions of humans into existence for the express purpose of pouring out his wrath on them and damning them ... to make the others whom he has chosen feel even luckier than they already do?

It doesn't get any more glorious than that!

TEN YEARS

Ten years ago today, Melissa and the kids and I boarded a plane in Fort Pierce, Florida and flew to Haiti. We sat on the plane directly across from our cargo - clothes, household items, and school supplies. 

I look back on it now and feel incredible gratitude for all that it meant, living and working in Haiti for seven years. It wasn't easy, but it was good.

I shed a few tears this morning while I was in the shower; I won't hide it. 

But today also felt like the beginning of a new decade somehow.

There's a good chance that the next ten years will prove to be even better. Who knows what God has up His sleeve.

We certainly didn't ten years ago.

THE CRUCIFIED LIFE

Paul’s concern in his letter to the Galatians over the purity of the gospel should be a warning to us all. Like Peter, we might find it easy to say we believe that our justification before God comes only through faith in Jesus Christ (2:16), but at times our actions might indicate we have grown confused (1:7). It is not just the Jews of Bible times who were tempted to live as though their salvation depended on following all of God’s commands, doing all that He says to do and avoiding all that He says to avoid. Modern Christians can find themselves going through the motions or calculating how many Sundays they can skip church before arousing God’s ire.

          Like Peter, we might not realize that we have added something sinister to the gospel when we strive to generate our own righteousness by rule-following. And like Peter we might impose the “works of the law” not only on ourselves but on those around us. The law, just doing its job, leaves us feeling convicted of sin and guilty before God. It should drive us back to Christ.

          Paul calls us back to the purity of the gospel and faith in Christ, where there is freedom. But if we stop tracking our own righteousness and that of others around us, will that not open the door to the acceptance of sin? Not when we understand that what God desires is for us to truly live for Him (2:19).

          This life of true righteousness, though, is only possible if we accept the law’s death penalty and allow our present life – our very selves – to be crucified with Christ. Once we have died to ourselves, there is room for Christ to live in us (2:20), directing our hands, our feet, and our mouths.

          This opportunity is available only by the grace of God, whose Son loved us enough to give Himself for us (2:21). The crucified life embraces this grace. The score-keeping life sets it aside, risking tragic results.

A GOOD DAY

I just finished writing a 3,000 word paper for my hermeneutics class and I am toast. But also feeling joyful. 

I woke up dreading the day because I knew I was going to have to spend the majority of the given hours at my laptop, finishing this paper. 

But then I worked at changing my mindset. 

I remembered that there are far worse ways to spend a day than in a comfortable office in my comfortable house in the comfortable air conditioning.

And I reminded myself that I would get some very pleasant breaks throughout the day - moments when I would pick some tomatoes in the garden, go for a run with one of the dogs, or enjoy a bowl of ice cream. The day wasn't going to be ALL bad.

And besides, what's so bad about spending the day looking closely at a passage from the Bible and writing about it. That's not bad at all - in fact, it is an incredible privilege!

The change in mindset made all the difference in my experience of this day - it changed my attitude and that changed my energy level.

In reflection, if I had retained my mindset of misery, I am not sure I would have finished by the midnight deadline. 

It was a good day.

HIDDEN VERSES

One of the biggest problems with creating a list of proof-texts to establish your favorite theological doctrine is what doesn't make the list.

And what doesn't make the list is every verse that could be interpreted in a way that disproves your doctrine.

There is no way for your intended audience to know if there are zero such verses or if that alternate list would be ten times as long as yours. 

Those opposing verses are simply invisible. (Unless your audience "does their own research".)

So as you build your total depravity proof list, for instance, you include Psalm 14:2-3 (Referenced by Paul in Romans 3:11) to establish that human beings are incapable of seeking God:

 2 The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God.

3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. *

But there are a few verses you have to hide - to leave off your list. Like Isaiah 55:6-7:

6 Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near.

7 Let the wicked man forsake his own way and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon.

And this from Paul's preaching to the Athenians in Acts 17:

27 God intended that they (humans) would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 

Proof-texting is a playground for confirmation bias. You will see only evidence which confirms your prior belief. Everything else will remain hidden. 

* Of course, you do not acknowledge that right there in verse 3 it makes clear these are people who have become corrupt - which would preclude the possibility that they were born corrupt. OR the fact that the psalmist is speaking of fools who deny God's existence - none of these fools seek Him - and contrast them against God's own people later in the psalm. 

PROOF-TEXT CASE STUDY

I try to stay positive here, but this is low.

The top Google result for "bible passages about total depravity" is a list of verses from a guy named Travis Carden and its best use is to illustrate why the discerning believer should put little trust in arguments based on proof-texts.

For example:

Under the heading of What is man’s relationship to God?

The first entry reads as follows: Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb.

Immediately, we see that the presuppositions of Calvinism are being read into the Scriptures.

How so?

Well, the heading implies the verses to follow are all about mankind's relationship to God. That is, Mankind in General.

Since the Calvinist is already convinced that mankind is wicked, "wicked" in Psalm 58:3 is an obvious synonym for "mankind in general" - to the Calvinist. 

But the only question that matters is whether or not Scripture means "wicked" to be synonymous with "all mankind". 

Read the entire psalm and it clearly does not:

3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

4 Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears.

In the next several verses the psalmist wishes calamity on these people. Then come verses 10 and 11 which should give the Calvinist some pause:

10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.

11 Then people will say, “Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.”

Sure looks like the wicked aren't the entire population of the planet. Looks like the population is divided into "the wicked" and "the righteous". And God's response toward the wicked is quite different from his response toward the righteous. 

I would like to ask Mr. Carden if he is being intentionally misleading in his list of proof-texts or if he is simply too brainwashed to see what is right in front of his eyes. 

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but look at the first two entries for another of his headings:

Can man then do anything to please God?

• Proverbs 15:8 - The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord 
• Proverbs 15:9 - The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord

The clear implied answer, then, to Carden's question as to whether "man" can do anything to please God is NO. 

But again he has read "the wicked" as "all mankind".

Care to read the second half of each of those verses which Carden is citing to prove man can do nothing to please God? 

8 The Lord detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.

9 The Lord detests the way of the wicked, but he loves those who pursue righteousness.

Why leave out the second half of those verses, Mr. Carden?

The only way he is not a sleazy, lying false teacher is if he is simply a lazy, ignorant copy-and-paster unquestioningly dependent on some other sleazy, lying false teacher. 

3 ORIGINAL SIN PROOF-TEXTS

I know Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source, but it's late and I am just starting to investigate Original Sin, so it works for a starting place.

According to Wikipedia:

"The biblical bases for original sin are generally found in the following passages, the first and last of which explain why the sin is described as "original":

Genesis 3, the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden;

Psalm 51:5, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me";

Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12-21, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned...""

That's what I suspected!

Is this another theological doctrine constructed on a flimsy proof-text foundation?

Notice how unclear both Psalm 51:5 and the Romans 5 verse are. That sort of ambiguity makes them perfect for seeing confirmation of your own presuppositions in the text.  

ORIGINAL SIN

I wrote yesterday how my antennae now go up when I hear Bible teachers and preachers engage in proof-texting. If someone needs to hop all over the Bible and cherry pick verses, plucking them out of context, in order to establish a doctrine, there's reason to be highly suspicious of the doctrine.

Which brings me to the doctrine of "Original Sin". I don't have a firmly established belief about Original Sin, but I can see why it would be important to give it some thought. I've watched a couple of YouTube videos on the subject and I have questions:

• Is there an agreed upon definition? Or is this another one of those theological terms that means different things to different people?
• How is Original Sin different from simply believing people are sinful?
• How long has the doctrine been around? Where did it originate?
• What are the ramifications of the doctrine? Of its opposition?
• What are the alternatives to Original Sin?
• Which denominations/sects are on which side of the question?
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: What Bible passages are used to establish the veracity of the doctrine? What Bible verses support the opposition's position?

In other words, I am way past just asking what the past and current leaders within my own faith tradition have tended to believe - and then just accepting that position on their authority. 

I don't have any answers yet. Just my questions. 

FROM IMPRESSIVE TO SUSPICIOUS

About a decade ago, a friend of mine invited me to attend a Bible conference in Louisville, Kentucky for a few days and I was game - I recognized some of the names on the list of speakers and I am always up for learning more about the Bible. 

The conference was called Together For The Gospel.

At the time, I didn't know much about Calvinism's distinctives. Nor did I know that all of the speakers at this conference were Calvinists. 

(Now I know that Calvinists are a tight-knit group. Hard-core Calvinists like John Piper never share a stage with non-Calvinists.) 

If you've ever heard me rant about Calvinism, you might find this next statement unbelievable, but my general impression of Calvinism after listening to several days of preaching and perusing all their books in the conference bookstore was incredibly positive. 

I think the word I used was "impressive". 

And what most impressed me was the speakers' knowledge of the Bible. In every sermon these men were pulling verses from all over the Old and New Testaments to support their various points and doctrines.

It was persuasive.

But only because I was not being a Berean, nor was I aware that this habit of pulling verses from various books of the Bible in order to support a particular doctrine - what is termed "proof-texting" - is highly problematic to say the very least.

I am no longer impressed with anyone's ability to flip through a concordance and then pull verses out of their original contexts. 

In fact, these days it immediately triggers my BS detector. 

IT'S MAGIC

I don't know why, but I was asked by a friend of a friend of a friend by email what my opinion was about the use of magic in Christian literature. He writes stories with Christian messages but he does so through the use of magic as an allegory. It seems like he is looking for permission.

He has my permission - if that matters. Here's what I plan to tell him:

When I was a kid, "backward masking" in pop music was a big topic in church youth groups. The idea was that secular musicians were incorporating subliminal messages - praising Satan or whatever - into their songs. These messages could only be heard clearly by playing their records in reverse.  

Now that I look back on it, I realize that even if that were happening, it was merely a gimmick to generate publicity. But at the time it gave Christians something to talk about and fret over.

It seems to me that Satan has plenty of other tricks and temptations up his sleeve. I doubt he was spending too much time in recording studios intentionally concealing his messages. 

I felt the same when the Harry Potter books came out and some Christians got all incensed over the books' depiction of witchcraft and magic spells. 

When I looked around, I didn't see too many mature Christians jumping on that bandwagon. 

I suppose even today if you’re an author working to share a Christian message through stories involving magic, some people are going to get riled up. 

But the only question is – Should you care?

Are those people your target audience? I doubt it. 

So ignore their protests. 

No matter how you go about it, your stories are definitely not going to please everyone anyway . It’s just not possible.

So write for your audience and ignore the rest. 

 

SHILAJIT

Today is a James Brown kind of day – I feel good! (But I didn’t know that I would.)

For a couple of years - maybe since we returned to Indiana from Haiti - I have been losing energy. It's been a slow decline and I worried this might just be what the middle 50s feel like. 

But I hoped it was some curable medical issue.

It was getting so bad I went to a doctor about it. But all the blood tests were within normal ranges (thank God) for all things measured ... with one exception: Vitamin D.

So I started taking some Vitamin D and noticed a slight improvement in my energy levels. But it was so small I couldn't even be sure it wasn't just my imagination.

Now it just so happens that Caleb had been suffering from similar symptoms for quite a while – fatigue, napping, brain fog, lack of energy and motivation. He has tried everything – clean eating, testing, and a slew of dietary supplements. 

Recently he got a supplement that made a distinct difference in his energy level: shilajit. I had never heard of it before. 

(The computer autocorrect program doesn’t recognize shilajit as a real word, so I guess it's not too well known.) 

I got my own Shilajit on Caleb’s recommendation yesterday and started immediately.

And wow.

Unless I am experiencing a mere placebo effect, this stuff is miraculous. I guess I should moderate my enthusiasm until I am certain.

In the meantime, I should probably do a bit of research and figure out what this is that I am swallowing. 

WATCH OUT FOR STUFF

It IS possible to have “too much of a good thing”.

Our closets, drawers, and garages are stacked with stuff. Material possessions are a blessing but they can also weigh us down - and even dampen our spiritual lives. (Maybe even make it hard to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!)

See Luke 12:15 - Then Jesus said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” 

When it comes to "abundance of possessions", Americans are more "Welcome in!" than "Watch out!"

I don't know if you've ever come across “The Minimalists”, but they are two friends who have made it their mission to help Americans simplify their lives by cutting back on STUFF. (You can find them at theminimalists.com.) 

They offer the following simple rules (among others) to gain control over the stuff in our lives:

1. The Spontaneous Combustion Rule: Ask yourself, “If this item went up in smoke today, would I replace it?” If not, get rid of it.   
2. The Seasonality Rule: Ask yourself, “Have I worn or used this item in the past 90 days? Is it likely to be worn or used in the next 90 days?” If not, get it out of the house.                                  
3. The Wait for It Rule: Curb impulse buying. When you want to buy something new, make yourself wait 30 hours before putting down the money or clicking the Amazon button

Fall is a great time to lighten your load while expanding the Kingdom. 

• Hold a garage sale and donate the proceeds to your favorite ministry … like Mission Resource!                                                 
• Or donate items for repurposing. (I know of a ministry looking for household items and furniture to help men and women set up new homes following recovery from addictions. If you're in the Columbus, Indiana vicinity, contact me for more info: steve@missionresource.org.) 

You can listen to The Minimalists discuss these rules and others in greater detail RIGHT HERE. (13.5 minutes)

ANOTHER GOSPEL?

Paul begins his letter to the Galatians shocked that they have quickly turned from the Gospel he delivered to them in favor of “another gospel” – "which is really no gospel at all". 

Somehow a group of dissenters got to the Galatian Christians and convinced them all new Gentile believers needed to be circumcised in order to be accepted by God. A Gentile believer's faith - without circumcision - was simply not enough.

Biblical scholar N.T. Wright cautions readers of Galatians not to fall into "the temptation to project [their] own theological disputes into the letter", "with themselves heroically cast as 'Paul' and their own opponents crudely characterized as 'the Galatian intruders'". 

I feel the temptation. 

Since I have become convinced that Calvinism is a theologically misguided misreading of Scripture, I have to wonder if Paul would call it "another gospel". How consequential is the Calvinist mistake?

Some opponents of Calvinism take a soft stance and shrug off any theological differences as a fairly trivial disagreement between brothers and sisters in Christ.

On the other hand, I have heard some teachers and preachers who present a convincing case for labeling Calvinism an outright heresy for its unbiblical misrepresentation of the Gospel. 

My own opinion tends to lean toward seeing Calvinism's errors in these more serious terms.

That's not to say I believe individual Calvinists themselves are unsaved necessarily. (For one thing, I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to truly and consistently believe and live out Calvinist doctrine with all of its contradictions and redefinitions of terms. In practice Calvinists often do not believe all that differently from non-Calvinists.) 

Wright's concerns aside, Galatians does bring up the question: would Paul label Calvinism as “another gospel”?

It seems to me that there is a big enough difference between Calvinist doctrine and non-Calvinist doctrine on the matter of the Gospel that one or the other by necessity would have been called "another gospel which really is no gospel at all" by the Apostle Paul.

And Paul says that anyone teaching "another gospel" ought to be "accursed"! 

That's some harsh language. But accurately presenting the Gospel is serious business with eternal ramifications. 

WRITING FASTER

A week ago I bought a book on Kindle called 5,000 Words Per Hour, by Chris Fox. 

Fox lays out a plan to increase writing speed by tracking 5 minute writing "sprints" each day. 

And he gives a tool to track progress, because he knows that when it comes to improving a skill, seeing progress is key.

I was interested in this exercise because I have hopes of helping a friend write a book. 

As my school work has increased in recent months, I have found daily excuses as to why I have made ZERO progress on the project. But Fox points out that if you can write 200 words per minute for five minutes, then you can (theoretically) write more than 2,000 words per hour. With practice, that could be raised to 5,000 wph. 

The typical nonfiction book is between 40 and 80 thousand words in length. If a person can write even 2,000 words per hour, a 40,000 word book can be written in 20 hours.

At least the rough draft could be. Yes, researching, revising, and proofreading are going to take quite a few more hours, but the hardest part - getting the ideas down on paper - seems manageable when seen in this light. 

That's a change in mindset. And a proper mindset can overcome even legitimate excuses.

So am I seeing progress after just one week? 

On Day One I wrote 160 words in 5 minutes, giving me a rate of 1,920 words per hour.

Day Two - 196

Day Three - 189

Day Four - 223

Day Five - 203

Day Six - 214

Today, on Day Seven, I wrote 246 words. That's 2,952 wph.

Point made, Chris Fox!