I was asked by a co-worker what it meant to be “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. I had always interpreted John 3:5, in light of verse 6, to mean that being born of water referred to physical birth and being born of the Spirit was spiritual birth. However, I was taught a Moody (in my first semester) that the “born of water” was a reference to cleansing, and that it came from Ezekiel 36. To me it seemed obvious that physical birth and spiritual birth were being contrasted, both in verse 6 and 5, and the other explanations seemed to be making something simple complicated. But, having been asked about it again, I said I would look at it and get back to him.
The passage reads, “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:5-6). I think you can see how I had come to my understanding.
I looked to D.A. Carson in his PNTC on John for help, and this is when I changed my mind. I had probably heard this more than once from professors, but it had not sunk in, or broke through into my understanding until this time. Carson gave three reasons for understanding “born of water and the Spirit” as the single event of the new birth. As Dr. Marty had explained in New Testament Survey back at Moody, the water pictured the spiritual cleansing part of the new birth.
The first reason, and the one for which the light bulb finally went on was the parallelism between verses 3 and 5. I had seen a parallel between verses 5 and 6, but had missed this one. And taken together along with reasons 2 and 3, I think Carson is right. Verse 3 reads, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” “Born again” can also be translated “born from above,” which Carson argues for, but either way the point of the parallelism is well made. There is one birth, the new birth, in view in verse 3, and so it is with verse 5.
The preposition “of” also supports this understanding that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to one birth. Just tonight I saw this as I turned to the verse in preparation. I was thinking through my old arguments, and when I turned to the verse I expected to read, “born of water and of the Spirit.” But that is not what I found. “Of” governs both water and Spirit. The one birth is the result “of the water and the Spirit.”
The third reason Carson gives is the Old Testament background to water and spirit. Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not understanding the new birth even though he was a teacher (v. 10). So we should expect this new birth to be taught in Nicodemus’ Scriptures. Several are given, but I think the one Dr. Marty appealed to is the best, Ezekiel 36:25-27, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” Ezekiel teaches about the new birth being a cleansing as with water and the receiving of a new spirit. Taken together, I am convinced, being “born of water and the Spirit” means to be born again, not physically born and spiritually born.
I had more to say but I forget what it was. If I remember I’ll add it later.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Bumper Sticker Comes up Short
I was passed by a car driven by a young woman who had parking permit stickers to a state university on the window. On the back she had a bumper sticker that read, “Don’t like Abortion? Don’t have one.” I wonder how far she would go advocating for this type of personal freedom? Don’t like murder? Don’t murder. Don’t like rape? Don’t rape. Her argument was, don’t tell me what to do. Don’t force your beliefs or morals on me. You do what you want to do, and I’ll do what I want to do. You live how you want and I’ll live how I want. If I want to murder, I should be able to. If you don’t like it, then don’t murder, but don’t tell me what to do.
Obviously this is not how she would see the argument. Why Not? She and everyone else who bought the bumper sticker fail to recognize the unborn child as a victim. They fail to recognize the unborn child as having any value, let alone as a human being. They therefore see the abortion as something done to them and them alone, so who should have the right to tell them what to do? Well even against this reasoning there are arguments, the kind of arguments I would use against suicide and euthanasia. But let’s stick to abortion for now.
Scripture says in Psalm 139:13, “For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother’s womb.” God is the one credited with forming us in our mother’s wombs. If it is God knitting together the unborn child, do you think He would want anyone destroying that work? Even those malformed or still born are the work of God’s hands. No doubt these are the results of the fallen sin-cursed world in which we live, but He is still sovereign and He has promised to work all things for good. Trust Him. Life is precious, all life, and we should do everything we can to help it, foster it, and preserve it, not to end it. The taking of life is in God’s purposes and hands, and I don’t think we should be meddling there. What about war and capital punishment? I’ll touch on that in a minute.
Another Scripture you have to deal with when talking about abortion is Exodus 21:22-25, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” To cause a premature birth is to cause an injury that incurred a fine as penalty. But if the child was injured the same penalty was demanded as when one adult injured another, including life for life. So if the injury to the unborn child caused its death the one who caused the injury was to be put to death. I think this is powerful testimony to the belief that the unborn child is a human being, and a life sacred to God.
I have heard this used to support the view that the unborn child is actually regarded as less than fully human. It is based on a misinterpretation. “Gives birth prematurely” has been translated “miscarriage.” This is not correct, but let’s assume for a moment that it is. The argument is that if a person is killed then the punishment is life for life, but if an unborn baby is killed the punishment is a fine. Even if this was the case it does not mean that the unborn child is to be regarded as less than human. It also says in this same chapter that if you strike your slave and they lose their eye you must set them free. If you hit a free man and he lost his eye, the penalty would be the loss of your eye. You would never assume that the slave was regarded as less than human. Indeed there is plenty of Scripture to teach one other wise. Neither should such an argument be made in the case of the unborn.
Now against the translation “miscarriage” I offer two arguments. If you translate it miscarriage the verse then says that a miscarriage is not to be regarded as an injury. But more importantly, if you look up “miscarriage” in a NASB concordance you find it 4 times in the Old Testament. There is a word for miscarriage, nephel, that accounts for three occurrences. The forth found in Exodus 21:22 comes from two common words, yatsa = to go out, and yeled = child. Only once is this translated miscarriage. The updated NASB got it right with “gives birth prematurely.”
So how can one support capital punishment and then decry abortion on the grounds that the unborn baby is a human being and all human life is sacred? It is because life is sacred that those who take it unlawfully must be punished, including forfeiting their life. A life of a criminal may be taken to protect the lives of others. Similarly when countries go to war, the war can be justified when its purpose is to protect the welfare of the country’s citizenry. Not that this is the only way in which a war may be judged a just war, but it is enough to demonstrate that war is not necessarily at odds with the belief in the sanctity of life.
So the bumper sticker comes up short. It either is ignorant of the personhood of the unborn child, or it is making a conscious statement against it. You wouldn't get this view past the Scriptures. Not to mention what we know medically about the unborn supports the biblical position that life begins at conception.
I know and love several people who have had abortions. This is in no way to offend or hurt them. I just need to speak out against what I see as a great evil. If anyone is likewise convinced and burdened with guilt over such a past decision, I plead with you to be free in Christ. Like any other sin, if you come to God by faith in Christ seeking forgiveness, you will have it.
Obviously this is not how she would see the argument. Why Not? She and everyone else who bought the bumper sticker fail to recognize the unborn child as a victim. They fail to recognize the unborn child as having any value, let alone as a human being. They therefore see the abortion as something done to them and them alone, so who should have the right to tell them what to do? Well even against this reasoning there are arguments, the kind of arguments I would use against suicide and euthanasia. But let’s stick to abortion for now.
Scripture says in Psalm 139:13, “For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother’s womb.” God is the one credited with forming us in our mother’s wombs. If it is God knitting together the unborn child, do you think He would want anyone destroying that work? Even those malformed or still born are the work of God’s hands. No doubt these are the results of the fallen sin-cursed world in which we live, but He is still sovereign and He has promised to work all things for good. Trust Him. Life is precious, all life, and we should do everything we can to help it, foster it, and preserve it, not to end it. The taking of life is in God’s purposes and hands, and I don’t think we should be meddling there. What about war and capital punishment? I’ll touch on that in a minute.
Another Scripture you have to deal with when talking about abortion is Exodus 21:22-25, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” To cause a premature birth is to cause an injury that incurred a fine as penalty. But if the child was injured the same penalty was demanded as when one adult injured another, including life for life. So if the injury to the unborn child caused its death the one who caused the injury was to be put to death. I think this is powerful testimony to the belief that the unborn child is a human being, and a life sacred to God.
I have heard this used to support the view that the unborn child is actually regarded as less than fully human. It is based on a misinterpretation. “Gives birth prematurely” has been translated “miscarriage.” This is not correct, but let’s assume for a moment that it is. The argument is that if a person is killed then the punishment is life for life, but if an unborn baby is killed the punishment is a fine. Even if this was the case it does not mean that the unborn child is to be regarded as less than human. It also says in this same chapter that if you strike your slave and they lose their eye you must set them free. If you hit a free man and he lost his eye, the penalty would be the loss of your eye. You would never assume that the slave was regarded as less than human. Indeed there is plenty of Scripture to teach one other wise. Neither should such an argument be made in the case of the unborn.
Now against the translation “miscarriage” I offer two arguments. If you translate it miscarriage the verse then says that a miscarriage is not to be regarded as an injury. But more importantly, if you look up “miscarriage” in a NASB concordance you find it 4 times in the Old Testament. There is a word for miscarriage, nephel, that accounts for three occurrences. The forth found in Exodus 21:22 comes from two common words, yatsa = to go out, and yeled = child. Only once is this translated miscarriage. The updated NASB got it right with “gives birth prematurely.”
So how can one support capital punishment and then decry abortion on the grounds that the unborn baby is a human being and all human life is sacred? It is because life is sacred that those who take it unlawfully must be punished, including forfeiting their life. A life of a criminal may be taken to protect the lives of others. Similarly when countries go to war, the war can be justified when its purpose is to protect the welfare of the country’s citizenry. Not that this is the only way in which a war may be judged a just war, but it is enough to demonstrate that war is not necessarily at odds with the belief in the sanctity of life.
So the bumper sticker comes up short. It either is ignorant of the personhood of the unborn child, or it is making a conscious statement against it. You wouldn't get this view past the Scriptures. Not to mention what we know medically about the unborn supports the biblical position that life begins at conception.
I know and love several people who have had abortions. This is in no way to offend or hurt them. I just need to speak out against what I see as a great evil. If anyone is likewise convinced and burdened with guilt over such a past decision, I plead with you to be free in Christ. Like any other sin, if you come to God by faith in Christ seeking forgiveness, you will have it.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Blood = Death
About a year ago I was teaching Sunday School on the Heidelberg Catechism's Lord's day 15 & 16. The subject is the suffering and death of Christ, the doctrine of the atonement. We had a missionary and his wife that our church supports visiting on the Sunday on which we looked at question/answer 40, "Why did Christ have to go all the way to death? Because God's justice and truth demand it: only the death of God's Son could pay for our sin." Our printing of the catechism gave four Scriptures as support: Genesis 2:17; Romans 8:3-4; Philippians 2:8; and Hebrews 2:9.
I had been focusing on the passage from Romans, but I also added one of my own, Hebrews 9:22, "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." In explaining how this verse fit with our discussion I said that "blood" here stands for death. It is a figure of speech. I am no expert on this, but I think you could see it as synecdoche, the part, blood, standing for the whole, death. But I believe I explained it as a metonymy, the cause, the shedding of blood, standing for the effect, death. Our two guests did not like my teaching at all. It seems they took it as me down playing the blood. Somehow missing my reference to Hebrews 9:22 the wife of the missionary made reference to the same passage, more or less stating, "How could you say that, doesn't the Bible say, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness'." I tried to explain that yes, it does, but when the Bible talks about us being forgiven by the blood of Christ it means by virtue of His death in our place we have forgiveness. I am pretty sure they left convinced that I was a liberal trying to write the blood of Christ out of the Bible.
If forgiveness is available through the shedding of blood without reference to death, could Christ have just bled from the scourging to procure our forgiveness? Could He have hung from the cross dripping blood from the nail wounds for an hour or so only to call on those angels to rescue Him and still purchased our redemption? No! It was with reference to His imminent death that He cried out, "It is finished." Which view now seems to come short of the Scriptural teaching on the atonement?
Bruce Demarest in his book The Cross and Salvation cites Hebrews 9:22 and says, "This being so, it was equally necessary that Christ should die a vicarious death for sins to be remitted" (188). I'll provide a couple of other quote from the same book as further evidence. "Under the Old Covenant Moses made burnt and fellowship offerings to the Lord and sprinkled the blood of animals on the altar, thereby temporarily propitiating God's anger and expiating sins. But Jesus implied that His death made an atonement for sins that was perfect and permanent" (174). Talking about the pattern of sacrifice in the Old Covenant he says, "The animal then was slain, signifying death as the requisite punishment for sin. The priest sprinkled the blood of the victim on the altar, the blood representing the life of the victim" (169).
Wayne Grudem says in his Systematic Theology, "The blood of Christ is the clear outward evidence that His life blood was poured out when he died a sacrificial death to pay for our redemption--'the blood of Christ' means his death in its saving aspects. . . . Scripture speaks so much about the blood of Christ because its shedding was very clear evidence that His life was given in judicial execution. Scripture's emphasis on the blood of Christ also shows the clear connection between Christ's death and the many sacrifices in the Old Testament that involved the pouring out of the life blood of the sacrificial animal. These sacrifices all pointed to and prefigured the death of Christ" (579).
Last of all for my defense which will hopefully vindicate me from the accusations of liberalism and deprecating the blood of Christ I present Hebrews 9:15-22. The context demonstrates that even here in verse 22 the emphasis and the point is all about the death of Christ.
"For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.' And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
I had been focusing on the passage from Romans, but I also added one of my own, Hebrews 9:22, "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." In explaining how this verse fit with our discussion I said that "blood" here stands for death. It is a figure of speech. I am no expert on this, but I think you could see it as synecdoche, the part, blood, standing for the whole, death. But I believe I explained it as a metonymy, the cause, the shedding of blood, standing for the effect, death. Our two guests did not like my teaching at all. It seems they took it as me down playing the blood. Somehow missing my reference to Hebrews 9:22 the wife of the missionary made reference to the same passage, more or less stating, "How could you say that, doesn't the Bible say, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness'." I tried to explain that yes, it does, but when the Bible talks about us being forgiven by the blood of Christ it means by virtue of His death in our place we have forgiveness. I am pretty sure they left convinced that I was a liberal trying to write the blood of Christ out of the Bible.
If forgiveness is available through the shedding of blood without reference to death, could Christ have just bled from the scourging to procure our forgiveness? Could He have hung from the cross dripping blood from the nail wounds for an hour or so only to call on those angels to rescue Him and still purchased our redemption? No! It was with reference to His imminent death that He cried out, "It is finished." Which view now seems to come short of the Scriptural teaching on the atonement?
Bruce Demarest in his book The Cross and Salvation cites Hebrews 9:22 and says, "This being so, it was equally necessary that Christ should die a vicarious death for sins to be remitted" (188). I'll provide a couple of other quote from the same book as further evidence. "Under the Old Covenant Moses made burnt and fellowship offerings to the Lord and sprinkled the blood of animals on the altar, thereby temporarily propitiating God's anger and expiating sins. But Jesus implied that His death made an atonement for sins that was perfect and permanent" (174). Talking about the pattern of sacrifice in the Old Covenant he says, "The animal then was slain, signifying death as the requisite punishment for sin. The priest sprinkled the blood of the victim on the altar, the blood representing the life of the victim" (169).
Wayne Grudem says in his Systematic Theology, "The blood of Christ is the clear outward evidence that His life blood was poured out when he died a sacrificial death to pay for our redemption--'the blood of Christ' means his death in its saving aspects. . . . Scripture speaks so much about the blood of Christ because its shedding was very clear evidence that His life was given in judicial execution. Scripture's emphasis on the blood of Christ also shows the clear connection between Christ's death and the many sacrifices in the Old Testament that involved the pouring out of the life blood of the sacrificial animal. These sacrifices all pointed to and prefigured the death of Christ" (579).
Last of all for my defense which will hopefully vindicate me from the accusations of liberalism and deprecating the blood of Christ I present Hebrews 9:15-22. The context demonstrates that even here in verse 22 the emphasis and the point is all about the death of Christ.
"For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.' And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Who Prepares the Vessels of Wrath for Destruction?
In Romans 9:22 the apostle Paul is in the middle of his response to a question of God’s fairness regarding his sovereign choice to have mercy upon whom he desires and to harden whom he desires and still hold those whom he hardens accountable. Borrowing from the potter and clay motif common in the Old Testament, Paul argues that this questioning of God’s sovereign plan is invalid. In verse 22 he takes up another line of argumentation that demonstrates that God is more than fair in His dealings with man. God patiently endures "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in order "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy." The question is, "Who has prepared these vessels of wrath for destruction?"
Difficulties arise when attempting to answer this question, for as most commentators agree, Paul’s concern is not with who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction, rather he makes known that their condition deserves destruction and they are ready to receive it (Cranfield 495-496; Dunn 567; Harrison 107; Mounce 202; Murray 36). There are three possibilities concerning who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction; it is either man (the vessel himself), Satan, or God. Some interpreters see a combination of the agents at work.
The first proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of the vessels themselves. Most of the arguments for this view rest on the assumption that the preparation is done either by God or man, and that the syntax seems to rule out God.
It is clear in Verse 23 that God is the one who prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. Verse 22, however, does not identify the preparer of the vessels for destruction. This difference appears to indicate that it is not God preparing the vessels of wrath. Cranfield notes that in verse 23 the Greek verb employed by Paul is a compound verb in the aorist active indicative, "thus clearly emphasizing the divine predetermining" (495). If God was the agent of preparation in both cases there would be no need for the variations. Harrison agrees "because he [Paul] avoids involving God in this case, whereas he is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy" (107).
There are differences in the grammar and choice of words in the Greek between verse 23 and 22, yet in the English "prepared" is the result in both cases. Morris, though not convinced himself, notes it is possible that the Greek word translated "prepared" in verse 22 is in the middle voice (368). If this is the case than a more accurate rendering is "vessels of wrath which prepared themselves for destruction."
Against this view some understand "prepared" to be in the passive voice. The use of the passive voice usually indicates that an agent other than the subject has acted upon the subject. If this understanding is correct it is not likely that the vessels are preparing themselves for destruction.
The context of chapter 9 also makes this view unlikely. In all the scriptural examples leading up to verse 22 God is seen as the one who chooses and hardens. It was God’s choice that made the difference between Isaac and Ishmael. The same is true of Jacob and Esau. In fact it is even more apparent that God’s choosing is quite apart from human works for God chose Jacob over Esau while they were yet unborn. God’s choice of Jacob surely did not depend on the deeds of either vessel for they had not yet done anything good or evil. The example of Moses and Pharaoh demonstrates God’s active role in hardening a person, in effect preparing them for destruction (Moo 598).
The second proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of Satan. Hendriksen sees the explicit reference to God in verse 23 as presenting a contrast in order to show that in verse 22 "the people themselves–in cooperation with Satan!–were the active agents" (328). This view has much in common with that above. The arguments for excluding God as an option are the same: since God is clearly the agent of preparation in verse 23 and the agent in verse 22 is hidden, it is not likely that God could be the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction. This leaves the possibility of either man or Satan. "When the [vessels of wrath] are described, a perfect passive participle is used . . . which hides the agent who, therefore, is not God -- Satan fitted them" (Lenski 624). Since the participle is passive, man himself is eliminated as an option. Satan is the only remaining possible agent.
Against this view it should be noted that Satan is not found in the immediate context of the verse. Paul does not have him in mind here. Therefore, Satan is not likely an option. The best defense against this view lies in the strength of the other arguments.
The third proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of God. Verse 22 comes on the heels of God’s dealings with Pharaoh and the illustration of the potter. Verses 15-18 bracket the example of Pharaoh with the idea that God freely exercises His choice of whom to have mercy upon and whom to harden. This demonstrates that it was the work of God to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
In verse 19 Paul anticipates an objection–if God is the one who hardens a person, how can that person be held responsible for his condition (which deserves destruction)? Paul at this point does not deny that it is indeed the work of God that hardens the person, instead he makes the point that man, as a created being, does not have the right to question God, his creator. If God was not the one who hardened, the one who prepared vessels of wrath for destruction, then this fact would be Paul’s response to the objection. Paul does not reject his opponents understanding of the situation, but he is rejecting their demands to submit the ways of god to human judgement.
The language of verse 21 does not sound as severe as condemning one to damnation, but the parallel between the example of Pharaoh and the potter illustration shows that the vessel made for common use is, like Pharaoh, deserving condemnation. Moo says of verse 21 that "Paul is asserting God’s right to make from the mass of humanity (the lump) some persons who are destined to inherit salvation and others who are destined for wrath and condemnation" (603). The parallels continue into verse 22 and it is here that the vessels prepared for wrath are prepared so by God, just as the potter prepared the vessels for common use, just as God hardened Pharaoh. Murray concurs, "‘Vessels of wrath’ and ‘vessels of mercy’ are best regarded in the terms of verse 21" (33).
Against this view is the explicit claim of verse 23 that God has prepared the vessels of mercy opposed to the lack of identifying the agent who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. Calvin adequately deals with this objection:
Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly, that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot (370).
It is also noted that verse 22 is connected to the previous verses with a conjunction that "indicates an element of opposition and implies that he [Paul] regards his illustration [of the potter and the clay] as inadequate" (Cranfield 493). However, Moo effectively counters this point:
The [conjunction] introducing this verse is often given a slight adversative force and taken to imply some distinction between the image of the potter and its application to the ways of God. But this seems overly subtle; Paul appears to use [it] with simple transitional force as he moves from the illustration to its application (604).
Noting the parallels between the hardening of Pharaoh and the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction is not enough to prove that this is all God’s doing. Even though it seems clear that God is doing the hardening of Pharaoh Romans 9, there are other passages in the Old Testament context that record Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Mounce 200).
The first proposed solution presented above is well supported. Many commentators have made good arguments that are based on the text. The original language and its grammar have been addressed. Yet this is not the best view. The arguments that try to show a break in the logic and parallels to the preceding verses do not do justice to the context and its importance. This is the main reason for the differences between those who support the first view and those who support the third view. The second proposed solution fails to be as well supported. Satan does not appear present in Paul’s thinking. More than for flaws in argumentation, this view is discredited by the support mounted in favor of the other views.
The best view is the third proposed solution. God is not explicitly named as the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction in verse 22, but the parallels with the preceding verse make it clear that Paul presents God as having chosen some people to be objects of mercy and some to be objects of wrath. Those chosen for mercy are being prepared for glory, while those chosen for wrath are being prepared, by God, for destruction. It should be noted, however, that good arguments can be made to see certain elements in the text, such as the use of the conjunction, as supporting either the first or the last view. When these arguments seem evenly weighted, they should be interpreted in the manner that supports the position best supported by the context and good theology. When the text is allowed to say what it seems to be saying, the third view emerges as the best view.
Difficulties arise when attempting to answer this question, for as most commentators agree, Paul’s concern is not with who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction, rather he makes known that their condition deserves destruction and they are ready to receive it (Cranfield 495-496; Dunn 567; Harrison 107; Mounce 202; Murray 36). There are three possibilities concerning who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction; it is either man (the vessel himself), Satan, or God. Some interpreters see a combination of the agents at work.
The first proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of the vessels themselves. Most of the arguments for this view rest on the assumption that the preparation is done either by God or man, and that the syntax seems to rule out God.
It is clear in Verse 23 that God is the one who prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. Verse 22, however, does not identify the preparer of the vessels for destruction. This difference appears to indicate that it is not God preparing the vessels of wrath. Cranfield notes that in verse 23 the Greek verb employed by Paul is a compound verb in the aorist active indicative, "thus clearly emphasizing the divine predetermining" (495). If God was the agent of preparation in both cases there would be no need for the variations. Harrison agrees "because he [Paul] avoids involving God in this case, whereas he is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy" (107).
There are differences in the grammar and choice of words in the Greek between verse 23 and 22, yet in the English "prepared" is the result in both cases. Morris, though not convinced himself, notes it is possible that the Greek word translated "prepared" in verse 22 is in the middle voice (368). If this is the case than a more accurate rendering is "vessels of wrath which prepared themselves for destruction."
Against this view some understand "prepared" to be in the passive voice. The use of the passive voice usually indicates that an agent other than the subject has acted upon the subject. If this understanding is correct it is not likely that the vessels are preparing themselves for destruction.
The context of chapter 9 also makes this view unlikely. In all the scriptural examples leading up to verse 22 God is seen as the one who chooses and hardens. It was God’s choice that made the difference between Isaac and Ishmael. The same is true of Jacob and Esau. In fact it is even more apparent that God’s choosing is quite apart from human works for God chose Jacob over Esau while they were yet unborn. God’s choice of Jacob surely did not depend on the deeds of either vessel for they had not yet done anything good or evil. The example of Moses and Pharaoh demonstrates God’s active role in hardening a person, in effect preparing them for destruction (Moo 598).
The second proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of Satan. Hendriksen sees the explicit reference to God in verse 23 as presenting a contrast in order to show that in verse 22 "the people themselves–in cooperation with Satan!–were the active agents" (328). This view has much in common with that above. The arguments for excluding God as an option are the same: since God is clearly the agent of preparation in verse 23 and the agent in verse 22 is hidden, it is not likely that God could be the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction. This leaves the possibility of either man or Satan. "When the [vessels of wrath] are described, a perfect passive participle is used . . . which hides the agent who, therefore, is not God -- Satan fitted them" (Lenski 624). Since the participle is passive, man himself is eliminated as an option. Satan is the only remaining possible agent.
Against this view it should be noted that Satan is not found in the immediate context of the verse. Paul does not have him in mind here. Therefore, Satan is not likely an option. The best defense against this view lies in the strength of the other arguments.
The third proposed solution is to understand the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction as the work of God. Verse 22 comes on the heels of God’s dealings with Pharaoh and the illustration of the potter. Verses 15-18 bracket the example of Pharaoh with the idea that God freely exercises His choice of whom to have mercy upon and whom to harden. This demonstrates that it was the work of God to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
In verse 19 Paul anticipates an objection–if God is the one who hardens a person, how can that person be held responsible for his condition (which deserves destruction)? Paul at this point does not deny that it is indeed the work of God that hardens the person, instead he makes the point that man, as a created being, does not have the right to question God, his creator. If God was not the one who hardened, the one who prepared vessels of wrath for destruction, then this fact would be Paul’s response to the objection. Paul does not reject his opponents understanding of the situation, but he is rejecting their demands to submit the ways of god to human judgement.
The language of verse 21 does not sound as severe as condemning one to damnation, but the parallel between the example of Pharaoh and the potter illustration shows that the vessel made for common use is, like Pharaoh, deserving condemnation. Moo says of verse 21 that "Paul is asserting God’s right to make from the mass of humanity (the lump) some persons who are destined to inherit salvation and others who are destined for wrath and condemnation" (603). The parallels continue into verse 22 and it is here that the vessels prepared for wrath are prepared so by God, just as the potter prepared the vessels for common use, just as God hardened Pharaoh. Murray concurs, "‘Vessels of wrath’ and ‘vessels of mercy’ are best regarded in the terms of verse 21" (33).
Against this view is the explicit claim of verse 23 that God has prepared the vessels of mercy opposed to the lack of identifying the agent who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. Calvin adequately deals with this objection:
Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly, that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot (370).
It is also noted that verse 22 is connected to the previous verses with a conjunction that "indicates an element of opposition and implies that he [Paul] regards his illustration [of the potter and the clay] as inadequate" (Cranfield 493). However, Moo effectively counters this point:
The [conjunction] introducing this verse is often given a slight adversative force and taken to imply some distinction between the image of the potter and its application to the ways of God. But this seems overly subtle; Paul appears to use [it] with simple transitional force as he moves from the illustration to its application (604).
Noting the parallels between the hardening of Pharaoh and the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction is not enough to prove that this is all God’s doing. Even though it seems clear that God is doing the hardening of Pharaoh Romans 9, there are other passages in the Old Testament context that record Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Mounce 200).
The first proposed solution presented above is well supported. Many commentators have made good arguments that are based on the text. The original language and its grammar have been addressed. Yet this is not the best view. The arguments that try to show a break in the logic and parallels to the preceding verses do not do justice to the context and its importance. This is the main reason for the differences between those who support the first view and those who support the third view. The second proposed solution fails to be as well supported. Satan does not appear present in Paul’s thinking. More than for flaws in argumentation, this view is discredited by the support mounted in favor of the other views.
The best view is the third proposed solution. God is not explicitly named as the one who prepares vessels of wrath for destruction in verse 22, but the parallels with the preceding verse make it clear that Paul presents God as having chosen some people to be objects of mercy and some to be objects of wrath. Those chosen for mercy are being prepared for glory, while those chosen for wrath are being prepared, by God, for destruction. It should be noted, however, that good arguments can be made to see certain elements in the text, such as the use of the conjunction, as supporting either the first or the last view. When these arguments seem evenly weighted, they should be interpreted in the manner that supports the position best supported by the context and good theology. When the text is allowed to say what it seems to be saying, the third view emerges as the best view.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Do Not Give To God
In January 2004 Bruce Ware had come to MBI from Southern Seminary to preach at our chapel. His teaching on worship from Psalm 50 left an impression. He arrested my attention saying, “It is blasphemous to say that God created people because He was lonely.” That in fact was something I was told when I was a young Christian. I don’t think I would have said it that same way at the time I heard Ware’s message, but I would have said that God created us for fellowship. For me that statement would have included the idea that God benefited from our company. The problem with this will become evident as we continue.
In verses 1-6 God summons the whole world for judgment. Two groups are singled out. In verses 7-15 He deals with “those who love religious rites but neglect thankfulness, obedience and prayer.” Then in verses 16-21 “those who recite the law but do not keep it.” Verses 22 and 23 end the psalm with a message of hope. There is instruction for both groups should they choose to reform.
Bruce Ware focused on verse 9-15 in which God says, “I shall take no young bull out of your house nor male goats out of your folds. For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of male goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving and pay your vows to the Most High; call upon Me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.”
Wow! The text still leaves an impression. Ware summed up verses 9-13 saying, “Israel’s wrong attitude of worship was to worship as if they were meeting God’s need, as was done for ANE gods.” We do not benefit God. John Piper has a heading in the chapter on Worship in Desiring God that reads, “Beware of Giving to God.” He says, “We strive against God’s all-sufficient glory if we think we can become a means to His end without making joy in Him our end. . . . the one who actually sets himself above God is the person who presumes to come to God to give rather than to get.”
God said in verse 12 that He, who owns everything, would not come to us, who are we, with any need. Now I would say it is blasphemous to suggest that God has any needs, but we speak hypothetically for the sake of instruction. Our resources are pitiful compared to His, and what we have has come from Him anyway! As John Piper says, “the giver gets the glory.” Verse 15 bears repeating in this regard, “Call on Me, I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.” We are the needy ones! He rescues us and we honor Him. Beware of serving God. “He is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.”
I cannot help but think of another text, Acts 17:24-25, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.”
God needs nothing. He has never been lonely for there has always been perfect fellowship among the Trinity. God does find delight in His creation, and He will no doubt have joy over us when we come to Him to be filled, but do not think He needs us. We need fellowship with God, not the other way around. What an immense and awesome God! As we come to see Him more and more as He is, the more joy we find in coming to Him.
The psalm closes, “Now consider this, you who forget God, or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver. He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; and to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God.” Do not come to God to give, rather come thankful for what He gives. Obey what God commands. “Samuel said, ‘Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22).
In verses 1-6 God summons the whole world for judgment. Two groups are singled out. In verses 7-15 He deals with “those who love religious rites but neglect thankfulness, obedience and prayer.” Then in verses 16-21 “those who recite the law but do not keep it.” Verses 22 and 23 end the psalm with a message of hope. There is instruction for both groups should they choose to reform.
Bruce Ware focused on verse 9-15 in which God says, “I shall take no young bull out of your house nor male goats out of your folds. For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of male goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving and pay your vows to the Most High; call upon Me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.”
Wow! The text still leaves an impression. Ware summed up verses 9-13 saying, “Israel’s wrong attitude of worship was to worship as if they were meeting God’s need, as was done for ANE gods.” We do not benefit God. John Piper has a heading in the chapter on Worship in Desiring God that reads, “Beware of Giving to God.” He says, “We strive against God’s all-sufficient glory if we think we can become a means to His end without making joy in Him our end. . . . the one who actually sets himself above God is the person who presumes to come to God to give rather than to get.”
God said in verse 12 that He, who owns everything, would not come to us, who are we, with any need. Now I would say it is blasphemous to suggest that God has any needs, but we speak hypothetically for the sake of instruction. Our resources are pitiful compared to His, and what we have has come from Him anyway! As John Piper says, “the giver gets the glory.” Verse 15 bears repeating in this regard, “Call on Me, I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.” We are the needy ones! He rescues us and we honor Him. Beware of serving God. “He is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.”
I cannot help but think of another text, Acts 17:24-25, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.”
God needs nothing. He has never been lonely for there has always been perfect fellowship among the Trinity. God does find delight in His creation, and He will no doubt have joy over us when we come to Him to be filled, but do not think He needs us. We need fellowship with God, not the other way around. What an immense and awesome God! As we come to see Him more and more as He is, the more joy we find in coming to Him.
The psalm closes, “Now consider this, you who forget God, or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver. He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; and to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God.” Do not come to God to give, rather come thankful for what He gives. Obey what God commands. “Samuel said, ‘Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22).
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Regeneration Before Faith?
I recently had a conversation with someone investigating Calvinism. They were hung up on the Calvinist understanding of total depravity, man's total inability to respond to the gospel. They seemed to hear the Calvinist saying that an unregenerate person cannot hear the gospel until he is regenerated, but he cannot become regenerate until he hears the gospel. I responded as follows:
Think about it this way. The unregenerate person is spiritually dead in their sin and so they cannot respond to the gospel with the faith that is necessary for salvation. Sure they can hear the gospel. They can understand the concepts intellectually, BUT they cannot BELIEVE it in the sense of saving faith until they are made spiritually alive. Therefore I say, as a Calvinist, that regeneration is logically prior to faith.
At this point one might accuse me of saying that a person needs to be saved in order to be saved. Try it this way: Salvation is a broad term under which many doctrines fit. This is how Wayne Grudem presents the order of salvation in his Systematic Theology:
1. Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)
2. The Gospel Call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)
3. Regeneration (being born again)
4. Conversion (faith and repentance)
5. Justification (right legal standing)
6. Adoption (membership in God’s family)
7. Sanctification (right conduct of life)
8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
9. Death (going to be with the Lord)
10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)
So all of the above doctrines are included in what it means to be saved. I believe the confusion here results from the fact that while 2-6 (and the initial act of sanctification) logically occur in this order, in time and experience they occur simultaneously. One hears the preaching of the gospel. At the same time God extends to the elect His irresistible saving grace (of course not necessarily or often the first time they hear the good news). There is the general call of the gospel that all who come under its preaching receive and there is the effectual call that is a work of God that only the elect receive. The effectual call of God guarantees the elect will come to faith in Him. This results in their regeneration. Regeneration is solely the work of God by which they are quickened, or born again. When they have been regenerated they now have the spiritual life necessary to exercise saving faith. They are no longer to spiritually impotent dead man. When they repent and believe, then God imputes to them the righteousness of Christ and they are justified. Having been brought into a right relationship with God He adopts them as His children. He sets them apart for a holy life (the initial act of sanctification).
This is my understanding, and it seems to be a pretty standard Calvinist understanding of what Scripture teaches. There is another slightly different Calvinist view that may better appeal to some, but I don’t think it is as accurate. Millard Erickson, in Christian Theology, concludes that regeneration must follow faith and repentance. As a Calvinist this causes a tension he must now resolve, for it seems to deny total depravity. My position and the standard Calvinist position is that as totally depraved we have a total inability to respond to God or do anything to merit His favor. Erickson also wants to hold to this so he must explain how a spiritually dead person can respond to the gospel in faith. He says we must “distinguish between God’s special and effectual calling on the one hand, and regeneration on the other. Although no one is capable of responding to the general call of the gospel, in the case of the elect God works intensively through a special calling so that they do respond in repentance and faith.”
I am not persuaded at this point, for anything less than regeneration leaves the dead man dead. Spiritually dead men do not believe the gospel. Remember that this is a logical order, not a chronological order. These things happen simultaneously. I think that realization resolves the tension.
It seems that recognition of a distinction of the general call heard in the preaching of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Spirit that accompanies it when a person is saved would help someone in their pursuit of understanding the Calvinist position. Now this view does not deny that the Spirit can influence an unregenerate person. The Spirit convicts the world of sin. The Spirit certainly moves people and influences them, but is not in them the way He indwells believers. So yes, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.
Think about it this way. The unregenerate person is spiritually dead in their sin and so they cannot respond to the gospel with the faith that is necessary for salvation. Sure they can hear the gospel. They can understand the concepts intellectually, BUT they cannot BELIEVE it in the sense of saving faith until they are made spiritually alive. Therefore I say, as a Calvinist, that regeneration is logically prior to faith.
At this point one might accuse me of saying that a person needs to be saved in order to be saved. Try it this way: Salvation is a broad term under which many doctrines fit. This is how Wayne Grudem presents the order of salvation in his Systematic Theology:
1. Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)
2. The Gospel Call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)
3. Regeneration (being born again)
4. Conversion (faith and repentance)
5. Justification (right legal standing)
6. Adoption (membership in God’s family)
7. Sanctification (right conduct of life)
8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
9. Death (going to be with the Lord)
10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)
So all of the above doctrines are included in what it means to be saved. I believe the confusion here results from the fact that while 2-6 (and the initial act of sanctification) logically occur in this order, in time and experience they occur simultaneously. One hears the preaching of the gospel. At the same time God extends to the elect His irresistible saving grace (of course not necessarily or often the first time they hear the good news). There is the general call of the gospel that all who come under its preaching receive and there is the effectual call that is a work of God that only the elect receive. The effectual call of God guarantees the elect will come to faith in Him. This results in their regeneration. Regeneration is solely the work of God by which they are quickened, or born again. When they have been regenerated they now have the spiritual life necessary to exercise saving faith. They are no longer to spiritually impotent dead man. When they repent and believe, then God imputes to them the righteousness of Christ and they are justified. Having been brought into a right relationship with God He adopts them as His children. He sets them apart for a holy life (the initial act of sanctification).
This is my understanding, and it seems to be a pretty standard Calvinist understanding of what Scripture teaches. There is another slightly different Calvinist view that may better appeal to some, but I don’t think it is as accurate. Millard Erickson, in Christian Theology, concludes that regeneration must follow faith and repentance. As a Calvinist this causes a tension he must now resolve, for it seems to deny total depravity. My position and the standard Calvinist position is that as totally depraved we have a total inability to respond to God or do anything to merit His favor. Erickson also wants to hold to this so he must explain how a spiritually dead person can respond to the gospel in faith. He says we must “distinguish between God’s special and effectual calling on the one hand, and regeneration on the other. Although no one is capable of responding to the general call of the gospel, in the case of the elect God works intensively through a special calling so that they do respond in repentance and faith.”
I am not persuaded at this point, for anything less than regeneration leaves the dead man dead. Spiritually dead men do not believe the gospel. Remember that this is a logical order, not a chronological order. These things happen simultaneously. I think that realization resolves the tension.
It seems that recognition of a distinction of the general call heard in the preaching of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Spirit that accompanies it when a person is saved would help someone in their pursuit of understanding the Calvinist position. Now this view does not deny that the Spirit can influence an unregenerate person. The Spirit convicts the world of sin. The Spirit certainly moves people and influences them, but is not in them the way He indwells believers. So yes, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Trinity
A couple of my co-workers are Jehovah's Witnesses. Another co-worker and friend of mine overheard something about them refusing to have blood transfusions. He asked me why that was, but since I didn't know I asked them. One of them took the lead in explaining to their position to me by quoting from Acts 15:20. I said I was familiar with James' address from the Jerusalem Council and offered a different understanding. I believe James was asking the Gentile converts to abstain from those things which were associated with pagan rituals and that trouble the conscience of those who lived by Old Testament dietary laws. If there was to be fellowship between the Jewish believers and Gentile believers the Gentiles were going to have to abstain from those things which a Jewish person had to avoid for conscience sake. So the Gentiles are asked to not eat meat with blood in it and that sort of thing, not to refuse a medical procedure like blood transfusion.
I'd love to learn more about that topic, but more importantly this exchange brought up the doctrine of the Trinity. This JW said something about Jesus abolishing the Law, and I said you won't find that anywhere in Scripture (see Matthew 5:17). To which she responded something like, "You know what you won't find anywhere in the Bible is the word Trinity."
I don't understand why this argument seems to carry weight with many people. You won't find the phrase "penal substitutionary atonement" in the Bible, but it nonetheless teaches that doctrine. You won't find the word Calvinism in the Bible, but that theology still best explains what Scripture teaches. I'm sure there are better examples, but you get the idea.
We are just finishing up a study of the Heidelberg Catechism, which I co-teach with my Pastor for the adult Sunday School. I taught on Lord's Day 8 which asks, "Since there is but one God, why do you speak of three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" The answer goes just as easily with the JW's question, why believe in the Trinity when the Bible never uses the word? The answer is, "Because that is how God has revealed Himself in His Word: these three distinct persons are one true, eternal God."
What does Trinity mean? The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says it "signifies that within the essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three 'persons' who are neither three gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God" (1112). Wayne Grudem simplifies it in his Systematic Theology, "God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God" (226).
So God is NOT one person, nor three gods, and not three parts of one God. God is one essence and three persons. Each members of the Trinity is a distinct Person. Each Person is fully God. And there is one God (one essence).
You can see three distinct Persons each with a distinct activity in John 14:26 where Jesus speaking says, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." You have the Father sending the Spirit, the Spirit teaching and bringing to the disciples' minds what Jesus has said to them and is speaking to them now in this verse. Three distinct activities carried out by three distinct Persons. There are many similar verses that support these points. I am just giving you a favorite of mine for each point. There may be others that you would find more convincing.
They are three distinct Person yet each Person is fully God. "There is no essential subordination in the Trinity, but there is economic subordination" (Dr. Finkbeiner). They possess the same divinity but they have different roles. The Father is fully God. "Father, the hour has come. . . . This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God" (John 17:1-3). The Son is fully God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John1:1). JW's don't argue that this verse refers to Jesus, as verse 14 makes clear. Instead they challenge the translation and claim that it should read, "and the Word was a god." This argument could only come from those ignorant of the Greek language. Even in their own dubious translation the same Greek construction is translated without the indefinite article 3 times in this same chapter. When it refers to the Father they have no problem translating it correctly. When it refers to Christ their theological presuppositions require that they make up new rules. Lastly, the Holy Spirit is God. Peter asks Ananias, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit", and in the following verse Peter continues, "you have not lied to men but to God." The Holy Spirit is God.
There are three Persons and they are equally God. And there is but one God. "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Let's give one more verse for this (and it's one that points us to Christ for salvation), "For there is one God, and there is one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). So let us not pray to anyone else, or seek God's grace from anyone else. It is only available in Christ.
I do not mean to say that understanding the Trinity is easy, far from it. But the Scripture does clearly teach this mystery. My attempt to explain it cannot help but leave us all wanting. Dr. Finkbeiner said, "The doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, with no adequate human analogy." Therefor I has not talked about a three leafed clover of the different physical states of water. They all fall short. Praise God for His mystery and immensity. And praise Him three in one, for He is Trinity. He is Awesome!
I'd love to learn more about that topic, but more importantly this exchange brought up the doctrine of the Trinity. This JW said something about Jesus abolishing the Law, and I said you won't find that anywhere in Scripture (see Matthew 5:17). To which she responded something like, "You know what you won't find anywhere in the Bible is the word Trinity."
I don't understand why this argument seems to carry weight with many people. You won't find the phrase "penal substitutionary atonement" in the Bible, but it nonetheless teaches that doctrine. You won't find the word Calvinism in the Bible, but that theology still best explains what Scripture teaches. I'm sure there are better examples, but you get the idea.
We are just finishing up a study of the Heidelberg Catechism, which I co-teach with my Pastor for the adult Sunday School. I taught on Lord's Day 8 which asks, "Since there is but one God, why do you speak of three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" The answer goes just as easily with the JW's question, why believe in the Trinity when the Bible never uses the word? The answer is, "Because that is how God has revealed Himself in His Word: these three distinct persons are one true, eternal God."
What does Trinity mean? The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says it "signifies that within the essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three 'persons' who are neither three gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God" (1112). Wayne Grudem simplifies it in his Systematic Theology, "God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God" (226).
So God is NOT one person, nor three gods, and not three parts of one God. God is one essence and three persons. Each members of the Trinity is a distinct Person. Each Person is fully God. And there is one God (one essence).
You can see three distinct Persons each with a distinct activity in John 14:26 where Jesus speaking says, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." You have the Father sending the Spirit, the Spirit teaching and bringing to the disciples' minds what Jesus has said to them and is speaking to them now in this verse. Three distinct activities carried out by three distinct Persons. There are many similar verses that support these points. I am just giving you a favorite of mine for each point. There may be others that you would find more convincing.
They are three distinct Person yet each Person is fully God. "There is no essential subordination in the Trinity, but there is economic subordination" (Dr. Finkbeiner). They possess the same divinity but they have different roles. The Father is fully God. "Father, the hour has come. . . . This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God" (John 17:1-3). The Son is fully God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John1:1). JW's don't argue that this verse refers to Jesus, as verse 14 makes clear. Instead they challenge the translation and claim that it should read, "and the Word was a god." This argument could only come from those ignorant of the Greek language. Even in their own dubious translation the same Greek construction is translated without the indefinite article 3 times in this same chapter. When it refers to the Father they have no problem translating it correctly. When it refers to Christ their theological presuppositions require that they make up new rules. Lastly, the Holy Spirit is God. Peter asks Ananias, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit", and in the following verse Peter continues, "you have not lied to men but to God." The Holy Spirit is God.
There are three Persons and they are equally God. And there is but one God. "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Let's give one more verse for this (and it's one that points us to Christ for salvation), "For there is one God, and there is one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). So let us not pray to anyone else, or seek God's grace from anyone else. It is only available in Christ.
I do not mean to say that understanding the Trinity is easy, far from it. But the Scripture does clearly teach this mystery. My attempt to explain it cannot help but leave us all wanting. Dr. Finkbeiner said, "The doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, with no adequate human analogy." Therefor I has not talked about a three leafed clover of the different physical states of water. They all fall short. Praise God for His mystery and immensity. And praise Him three in one, for He is Trinity. He is Awesome!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Treasure
Let me share something I learned from John Piper that has left my jaw hanging open and at the same time produced in me the welling up of a resounding YES! That is exactly it! I first read this in Desiring God, but I have since heard him preach on this in other places. The text is Matthew 13:44,
"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."
Piper says, "This parable describes how someone is converted and brought into the kingdom of heaven. A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all that he has in order to have this treasure" (70). He adds, "Faith has in it this element of valuing, embracing, prizing, relishing Christ" (90).
Hearing the words reminds me of the joy, and I am able to recapture it again. Yes! Jesus is all I need, He is all I want. Of course I do not always think like it, or live like it. That is why I need to be reminded of it. Does this world disappoint you? It matters not when you remember that you know Christ, that He is yours, and you are His.
Have you come to know Christ as your treasure? Do you value Him and desire Him so much that everything else becomes rubbish? For me it is another already and not yet. I do, oh, I do. Yet, I still do so imperfectly. I do not love Him as I ought. We must value Jesus above all else. That is what it is to be converted. This is what we must do if we are to go to heaven when we die.
This is what I want and what I am growing toward, to live consistently with this faith. Jesus is my treasure.
When I am done trying to explain this it seems inadequate. I will have to keep trying, so more on this later.
"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."
Piper says, "This parable describes how someone is converted and brought into the kingdom of heaven. A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all that he has in order to have this treasure" (70). He adds, "Faith has in it this element of valuing, embracing, prizing, relishing Christ" (90).
Hearing the words reminds me of the joy, and I am able to recapture it again. Yes! Jesus is all I need, He is all I want. Of course I do not always think like it, or live like it. That is why I need to be reminded of it. Does this world disappoint you? It matters not when you remember that you know Christ, that He is yours, and you are His.
Have you come to know Christ as your treasure? Do you value Him and desire Him so much that everything else becomes rubbish? For me it is another already and not yet. I do, oh, I do. Yet, I still do so imperfectly. I do not love Him as I ought. We must value Jesus above all else. That is what it is to be converted. This is what we must do if we are to go to heaven when we die.
This is what I want and what I am growing toward, to live consistently with this faith. Jesus is my treasure.
When I am done trying to explain this it seems inadequate. I will have to keep trying, so more on this later.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Religious Pluralism
Back when rhccucc.org had an on-line forum the following question was posted as part of a lenten study they were doing. Certain Scripture texts were given to interact with. It must have been about 6 years ago now that I posted the following reply, hoping to get a conversation going. I can recall no other responses. Let's see if it cannot generate a response here.
The Question:
How do Christians faithfully live with (or resolve) the tension between living respectfully in a world of many religions other than Christianity, and the Christian claim of particularity (Christ is the one and only, the savior of all people) and call to “go and make disciples”?
Christians cannot resolve the tension (in society) that exists due to Christian claims of particularity. The Bible makes exclusive claims, and if we are going to call ourselves Christians we must believe the Bible. Therefore we will experience conflict in this pluralistic society when we encounter those who have differing beliefs, including those who think that the claims of the Bible are untrue as well as those who adhere to different religions.
We must, however, live with people who have differing opinions and beliefs. Hebrew 12:14 tells us to "pursue peace with all men." The point of pursing peace is so that other my see Jesus. We must tolerates others and there views. This means that we must not persecute anyone for there beliefs, but we must still confront those in error with the truth that God has revealed.
The Bible does teach that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to heaven (John 14:6) and that Christians are to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). This creates tension, and we must live with it. We must also be faithful to the teachings of Scripture or we cannot claim to be Christian, for it is the Bible that reveals what it is to be Christian.
John 14:6 was a text we who respond are to consider. This is a clear Scriptural claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Acts 4:12 says that there is no other name by which men must be saved, referring to the name of Jesus. No one is saved by adhering to any religion. John 3:16 teaches that those who believe will enter eternal life. Unless a person can confess about Jesus what the Bible teaches there is no reason to believe that they are going to heaven. If someone thinks that adhering to a or any religion is going to get them into heaven they are wrong. If anyone thinks that someone else can get into heaven by adhering to a or any religion that person is not going to heaven themselves!
Matthew 25:31-46 teaches about the reality of both heaven and hell. We can also learn from this passage that both will be populated in eternity. This means that not everyone goes to heaven, and that no one ceases to exist. It teaches that you can know if someone is a Christian or not by their deeds. Christians' lives are marked by love shown to others. This supports the "living with the tension" notion. Matthew 7:15-21 also teaches this. These two passages also show that there are those who think that the will make it into heaven when they die but, they are wrong. Sincerity of faith does not get one into heaven if it is not placed in the Jesus of Scripture.
Matthew 28:18-20 addresses the issue of making disciples. This verse settles the issue, Christians are commanded to make disciples. We are to tell others about Jesus Christ. If we do not tell others, then we hate them. Romans 10:8-15 teaches that if people do not hear about Jesus then they will not believe and the will not be saved from hell. If you saw a blind woman in a crosswalk about to be hit by a bus would you not at least warn her of the danger if not push or pull her to safety? Why not, then, warn the spiritually blind, those would do not think that belief in Jesus is the only way to heaven, that the are in danger of going to hell. This includes those who adhere to other religions. In Ezekiel 3:18 the Lord says, "When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand."
The Question:
How do Christians faithfully live with (or resolve) the tension between living respectfully in a world of many religions other than Christianity, and the Christian claim of particularity (Christ is the one and only, the savior of all people) and call to “go and make disciples”?
Christians cannot resolve the tension (in society) that exists due to Christian claims of particularity. The Bible makes exclusive claims, and if we are going to call ourselves Christians we must believe the Bible. Therefore we will experience conflict in this pluralistic society when we encounter those who have differing beliefs, including those who think that the claims of the Bible are untrue as well as those who adhere to different religions.
We must, however, live with people who have differing opinions and beliefs. Hebrew 12:14 tells us to "pursue peace with all men." The point of pursing peace is so that other my see Jesus. We must tolerates others and there views. This means that we must not persecute anyone for there beliefs, but we must still confront those in error with the truth that God has revealed.
The Bible does teach that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to heaven (John 14:6) and that Christians are to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). This creates tension, and we must live with it. We must also be faithful to the teachings of Scripture or we cannot claim to be Christian, for it is the Bible that reveals what it is to be Christian.
John 14:6 was a text we who respond are to consider. This is a clear Scriptural claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Acts 4:12 says that there is no other name by which men must be saved, referring to the name of Jesus. No one is saved by adhering to any religion. John 3:16 teaches that those who believe will enter eternal life. Unless a person can confess about Jesus what the Bible teaches there is no reason to believe that they are going to heaven. If someone thinks that adhering to a or any religion is going to get them into heaven they are wrong. If anyone thinks that someone else can get into heaven by adhering to a or any religion that person is not going to heaven themselves!
Matthew 25:31-46 teaches about the reality of both heaven and hell. We can also learn from this passage that both will be populated in eternity. This means that not everyone goes to heaven, and that no one ceases to exist. It teaches that you can know if someone is a Christian or not by their deeds. Christians' lives are marked by love shown to others. This supports the "living with the tension" notion. Matthew 7:15-21 also teaches this. These two passages also show that there are those who think that the will make it into heaven when they die but, they are wrong. Sincerity of faith does not get one into heaven if it is not placed in the Jesus of Scripture.
Matthew 28:18-20 addresses the issue of making disciples. This verse settles the issue, Christians are commanded to make disciples. We are to tell others about Jesus Christ. If we do not tell others, then we hate them. Romans 10:8-15 teaches that if people do not hear about Jesus then they will not believe and the will not be saved from hell. If you saw a blind woman in a crosswalk about to be hit by a bus would you not at least warn her of the danger if not push or pull her to safety? Why not, then, warn the spiritually blind, those would do not think that belief in Jesus is the only way to heaven, that the are in danger of going to hell. This includes those who adhere to other religions. In Ezekiel 3:18 the Lord says, "When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand."
Don't Ask Jesus to Come Into Your Heart
This is the title of chapter12 in Evangelism: A Biblical Approach, by G. M. Cocoris. I found this to be a provocative statement. Revelations 3:20–‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.-- I have seen and even been taught to likewise use this verse to tell people, in effect, "If you want to go to heaven you need to listen to Revelations 3:20, Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart, if you let Him in, if you ask Him in, He will save you and you will go to be with Him in heaven when you die." After reading Cocoris, I do not think this is biblical.
I will not go into all the arguments the author uses, you can read the book for that. I will mention one main objection to the thinking presented above. The context of Revelation 3. This is a letter from Jesus to the church of Laodicea. That verse was written to people already going to heaven. These Christians, however, did have many problems and the Lord addresses them. One big problem was their pride. They were relying on their material wealth instead of on God. One of the things the Lord says they need is found in verse 20, fellowship with Him. And that is what that verse is about. So I agree with Cocoris, after examining this and other verses, there is no biblical precedent for asking Jesus into your heart. This may then lead one to ask, what does the bible teach about who will go to heaven?
I believe we must start with understanding. The Bible teaches that there are things we must know to be saved. Matthew 13:13-16 and Romans 10:14 among others prove this. The two most important things to understand are; Christ died for our sins, and He arose from the dead. I understand this from 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. Having heard these things and understanding them we come to the crux of the matter. This is the key, this is what scripture says one must do to be saved, or go to heaven... B E L I E V E .... Believe what? What I just said, that Jesus died for our sins, He paid our debt we otherwise have to pay in hell, and He rose from the dead, He was resurrected as His believers will some day be to live eternally with Him in heaven!!! Along with these truths come others.
To believe he died for our sins we must believe that we are sinners. The Bible teaches this all over; Romans 3:23-- for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,-- , please see also Romans 3:10-12, Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 17:10, etc. So we are sinners and according to Romans 6:23– For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.-- That is why Christ died on the cross to pay our sin debt. Please also see Isaiah 53:5-6 and Romans 5:8.
You must believe that Jesus is the infinite God-Man. Please see John 20:30-31 and John 1:1+14. The only "Christ" that can save you is the God of the Bible. Believing Jesus to be a good teacher and man is not enough; that is not the Jesus of the Bible. But, believing him only to be God won’t do either, He must be a man to pay for sin, a perfect sinless man to pay for the sin of all who trust in Him.
Now that I have put forth what I understand to be the basics of what one needs to know and then to believe in to go to heaven, let me further explain what is meant when the scriptures admonish us to believe in Jesus. Ephesians 2:8-9 –For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.-- It is God’s grace that saves us through faith which He gives us as a gift. When the Bible tells us to believe in or on Jesus to be saved we are being told to put our faith in Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of saving faith. Biblical faith has two aspects, intellectual agreement and trust. Please see the Greek. We must understand, believe, know the facts above to be true. That is the first part. Then we must also trust or rely upon Jesus to save us. This has been a difficult truth for me to communicate, the supporting verses are above, let me add an illustration. You might believe a bridge to be safe but, you don’t believe in it in a Biblical sense until you go out on it and it supports you. The fact that it supports you is not part of the faith but, it is proof you put you faith in the right object, and Jesus will save you if you trust Him to do so.
If you believe the biblical facts about Jesus and are trusting in Jesus to get you to heaven and trusting nothing else like the fact you were a good person and have lived a good life you will be saved from hell to live forever with God in heaven. This makes you a believer, a Christian. Read God’s word, the Bible. In it He has given us instructions for living and for developing a personal relationship with Him that began when you put your faith in Him. In it you will learn about prayer. I suggest you start to pray often to the God who hears you. It is a conversation with Him. Talk to Him and listen to what He has to say to you.
(I wrote this the summer (2001) before I enrolled at the Moody Bible Institute. I believe I originally wrote it for an on-line forum. Anyway, I have saved it on my computer all this time and having just skimmed it over, I thought it could be helpful in getting my blog going.)
I will not go into all the arguments the author uses, you can read the book for that. I will mention one main objection to the thinking presented above. The context of Revelation 3. This is a letter from Jesus to the church of Laodicea. That verse was written to people already going to heaven. These Christians, however, did have many problems and the Lord addresses them. One big problem was their pride. They were relying on their material wealth instead of on God. One of the things the Lord says they need is found in verse 20, fellowship with Him. And that is what that verse is about. So I agree with Cocoris, after examining this and other verses, there is no biblical precedent for asking Jesus into your heart. This may then lead one to ask, what does the bible teach about who will go to heaven?
I believe we must start with understanding. The Bible teaches that there are things we must know to be saved. Matthew 13:13-16 and Romans 10:14 among others prove this. The two most important things to understand are; Christ died for our sins, and He arose from the dead. I understand this from 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. Having heard these things and understanding them we come to the crux of the matter. This is the key, this is what scripture says one must do to be saved, or go to heaven... B E L I E V E .... Believe what? What I just said, that Jesus died for our sins, He paid our debt we otherwise have to pay in hell, and He rose from the dead, He was resurrected as His believers will some day be to live eternally with Him in heaven!!! Along with these truths come others.
To believe he died for our sins we must believe that we are sinners. The Bible teaches this all over; Romans 3:23-- for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,-- , please see also Romans 3:10-12, Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 17:10, etc. So we are sinners and according to Romans 6:23– For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.-- That is why Christ died on the cross to pay our sin debt. Please also see Isaiah 53:5-6 and Romans 5:8.
You must believe that Jesus is the infinite God-Man. Please see John 20:30-31 and John 1:1+14. The only "Christ" that can save you is the God of the Bible. Believing Jesus to be a good teacher and man is not enough; that is not the Jesus of the Bible. But, believing him only to be God won’t do either, He must be a man to pay for sin, a perfect sinless man to pay for the sin of all who trust in Him.
Now that I have put forth what I understand to be the basics of what one needs to know and then to believe in to go to heaven, let me further explain what is meant when the scriptures admonish us to believe in Jesus. Ephesians 2:8-9 –For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.-- It is God’s grace that saves us through faith which He gives us as a gift. When the Bible tells us to believe in or on Jesus to be saved we are being told to put our faith in Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of saving faith. Biblical faith has two aspects, intellectual agreement and trust. Please see the Greek. We must understand, believe, know the facts above to be true. That is the first part. Then we must also trust or rely upon Jesus to save us. This has been a difficult truth for me to communicate, the supporting verses are above, let me add an illustration. You might believe a bridge to be safe but, you don’t believe in it in a Biblical sense until you go out on it and it supports you. The fact that it supports you is not part of the faith but, it is proof you put you faith in the right object, and Jesus will save you if you trust Him to do so.
If you believe the biblical facts about Jesus and are trusting in Jesus to get you to heaven and trusting nothing else like the fact you were a good person and have lived a good life you will be saved from hell to live forever with God in heaven. This makes you a believer, a Christian. Read God’s word, the Bible. In it He has given us instructions for living and for developing a personal relationship with Him that began when you put your faith in Him. In it you will learn about prayer. I suggest you start to pray often to the God who hears you. It is a conversation with Him. Talk to Him and listen to what He has to say to you.
(I wrote this the summer (2001) before I enrolled at the Moody Bible Institute. I believe I originally wrote it for an on-line forum. Anyway, I have saved it on my computer all this time and having just skimmed it over, I thought it could be helpful in getting my blog going.)
ONA
My family has been involved with the RHCC for generations. My sister and I were "baptized" there. My great-grandparents, grandfather, and other loved ones' funerals have been there. An aunt and uncle as well as my grandmother are current members. So I periodically check the website to see what is going on there. Recently I read on rhccucc.org about their "Open and Affirming Committee." I wrote a letter to the committee and was going to email it to all the committee members (whose email addresses were available on the website) but I didn't want to intrude where I was not welcome. Instead I am posting my reaction here and inviting the committee to check it out.
Today I am writing concerning this ONA business that I read about on your website. Let me call your attention to some of the points made on your FAQ’s page. Question 6 reveals an admirable attitude to welcome and value all people. Your desire to be affirming, however, is misguided. It is similar to the derailment of the virtue of toleration today. People should be tolerant of all other people, Christians even more so. Christians are called even to love their enemies, let alone to tolerate others. Should we, however tolerate all ideas? Lifestyles? Of course not! Some ideas are wrong, some are stupid. Some lifestyles are wrong, some are immoral. A denial of this is a denial of common sense. Is it a good idea to run with scissors? Do we permit our children to do so? No. We enact rules as parents against such behavior for their protection. A Christian community, with the revealed will of God--the Bible, has the duty to warn people of moral pitfalls that will destroy their quality of life and jeopardize their eternal souls. We have the duty to persuade them of the truth and to point them in the direction of a satisfying and God-honoring life. We tolerate all people regardless of their beliefs, but we must do so without tolerating ideas that are harmful to people and society. And so it is with the issue of affirming people. We can affirm their worth and value without affirming their immorality.
Now we must decide whether or not homosexuality is immoral. You say in question 7 that “the Bible has both clear and contradictory teachings on this issue, as it does on many issues of human faithfulness.” While I am committed to tolerating the people, even loving the people who would say such things, I cannot and will not affirm such a preposterous statement which has such profoundly disastrous implications for the eternal destiny of people’s souls. I will plead with you like a doctor trying to persuade a sick patient to take the medication that will save their life. If the Bible is “contradictory” on “many issues” why believe in the Christ it reveals, why use this book alone in our worship, or faith and practice? How do you decide between what the Bible says and what competing authorities say? To come up with such a hermeneutic someone has clearly not appreciated the Bible for what it is, what it claims to be for itself! “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter says, “. . . just as also our brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18).
So what does the Bible say about homosexuality? “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22). “. . . and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:27). “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). 1Timothy 1:9-10 says that homosexuality “is contrary to sound teaching.” What is unclear about this?
It is not your ONA policy that motivated this letter as much as what the policy says about the way you handle the Scriptures. The reason how you handle the Scriptures concerns me enough to prompt the letter is that your hermeneutic will determine how you understand the Gospel. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” The message is important because it provides you with the content of your faith, Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those who would believe in Him. You have to trust that He died for you and that by so doing He paid the penalty that was due to you for all the sin, all the wrong that you have done. Through faith in Him you are declared righteous and God welcomes you into His family and will accept you into heaven when you die. If you don’t believe in Him, then you will go to hell when you die. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18). “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” (John 14:6). There is no other way to heaven than to believe in Jesus Christ, to trust in His death as the payment for your sin. If you believe that Jesus is one way to heaven and not the only way to heaven, then you do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. When my two year old daughter wants to stick something in a power outlet she might find my reaction harsh, but I scold her for her good, because I love her. Please accept my words with the love intended.
Today I am writing concerning this ONA business that I read about on your website. Let me call your attention to some of the points made on your FAQ’s page. Question 6 reveals an admirable attitude to welcome and value all people. Your desire to be affirming, however, is misguided. It is similar to the derailment of the virtue of toleration today. People should be tolerant of all other people, Christians even more so. Christians are called even to love their enemies, let alone to tolerate others. Should we, however tolerate all ideas? Lifestyles? Of course not! Some ideas are wrong, some are stupid. Some lifestyles are wrong, some are immoral. A denial of this is a denial of common sense. Is it a good idea to run with scissors? Do we permit our children to do so? No. We enact rules as parents against such behavior for their protection. A Christian community, with the revealed will of God--the Bible, has the duty to warn people of moral pitfalls that will destroy their quality of life and jeopardize their eternal souls. We have the duty to persuade them of the truth and to point them in the direction of a satisfying and God-honoring life. We tolerate all people regardless of their beliefs, but we must do so without tolerating ideas that are harmful to people and society. And so it is with the issue of affirming people. We can affirm their worth and value without affirming their immorality.
Now we must decide whether or not homosexuality is immoral. You say in question 7 that “the Bible has both clear and contradictory teachings on this issue, as it does on many issues of human faithfulness.” While I am committed to tolerating the people, even loving the people who would say such things, I cannot and will not affirm such a preposterous statement which has such profoundly disastrous implications for the eternal destiny of people’s souls. I will plead with you like a doctor trying to persuade a sick patient to take the medication that will save their life. If the Bible is “contradictory” on “many issues” why believe in the Christ it reveals, why use this book alone in our worship, or faith and practice? How do you decide between what the Bible says and what competing authorities say? To come up with such a hermeneutic someone has clearly not appreciated the Bible for what it is, what it claims to be for itself! “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter says, “. . . just as also our brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18).
So what does the Bible say about homosexuality? “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22). “. . . and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:27). “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). 1Timothy 1:9-10 says that homosexuality “is contrary to sound teaching.” What is unclear about this?
It is not your ONA policy that motivated this letter as much as what the policy says about the way you handle the Scriptures. The reason how you handle the Scriptures concerns me enough to prompt the letter is that your hermeneutic will determine how you understand the Gospel. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” The message is important because it provides you with the content of your faith, Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those who would believe in Him. You have to trust that He died for you and that by so doing He paid the penalty that was due to you for all the sin, all the wrong that you have done. Through faith in Him you are declared righteous and God welcomes you into His family and will accept you into heaven when you die. If you don’t believe in Him, then you will go to hell when you die. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18). “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” (John 14:6). There is no other way to heaven than to believe in Jesus Christ, to trust in His death as the payment for your sin. If you believe that Jesus is one way to heaven and not the only way to heaven, then you do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. When my two year old daughter wants to stick something in a power outlet she might find my reaction harsh, but I scold her for her good, because I love her. Please accept my words with the love intended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
