SCRIPTURE
Romans 16:17-18
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
COMMENT
This makes some interesting points. One is that the Galatians were apparently taught an important doctrine. And this doctrine was important, and some would seek to teach doctrines that are contrary to it. The words, "create obstacles contrary to..." lead me to believe that he is talking about the same issue here as in Galatians, where some added certain works to the saving faith proclaimed in Christ. The ones who do this do it to satisfy their own appetites, whether those appetites be for profit or power. And they know how to get what they want, smooth talk and flattery. I think of many preachers I have heard, who are more concerned about how people will react to their message rather than what the content of that message is.
We are told to avoid them. I do not believe that this is a command to blindly follow Paul, but rather done out of concern that hearing their message will deceive many, so don't give them a foothold. Don't give them an audience, for in doing so you may encourage others to be deceived.
I pray for the church, because I believe we have wandered far from the time when doctrine was important. I wonder how many even have a system of belief today. It just seems that for so many, they will follow whatever sounds right and feels good. I fear that false teaching is such a norm today that the division seems to be coming from those who hold to the true teachings of Jesus.
No wonder that Jesus said, "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith?"
Will He?
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Sunday, May 17, 2020
Still Making Sure (Galatians 2:1-3)
SCRIPTURE
Galatians 2:1-3
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
COMMENT
Paul was a confident and bold speaker, so these words come as a bit of a surprise to me. After 14 years of preaching, after a sudden and amazing turn around on the road to Damascus, after all of the hardships Paul had endured for the cross, did he really feel the need to make sure that he was on the right path? It appears so. And I love that about Paul.
In my adventures, I have met many who were convinced of their rightness and righteousness. So much so that they felt no need to even defend their belief. Not only that, but when Scripture was brought up, they were confident to state that such did not apply to them. But here is the Apostle Paul, still checking, still wanting to make sure that his path was the correct path. Humility, a rare quality. I think Paul deeply understood human nature, and that it applied to him just like it did to everyone else. No free pass because he was an Apostle. Fourteen years in, and he still feels the need to check his life and his doctrine. So he goes to get checked. He presents himself to, I can only assume, the leaders in Jerusalem including Peter. It goes well. They deem that even Titus, who is working closely with Paul, need not be circumcised.
That is a servant leader. One who is willing to put himself to the same tests that he would hold others to. Hard to find that today.
Galatians 2:1-3
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
COMMENT
Paul was a confident and bold speaker, so these words come as a bit of a surprise to me. After 14 years of preaching, after a sudden and amazing turn around on the road to Damascus, after all of the hardships Paul had endured for the cross, did he really feel the need to make sure that he was on the right path? It appears so. And I love that about Paul.
In my adventures, I have met many who were convinced of their rightness and righteousness. So much so that they felt no need to even defend their belief. Not only that, but when Scripture was brought up, they were confident to state that such did not apply to them. But here is the Apostle Paul, still checking, still wanting to make sure that his path was the correct path. Humility, a rare quality. I think Paul deeply understood human nature, and that it applied to him just like it did to everyone else. No free pass because he was an Apostle. Fourteen years in, and he still feels the need to check his life and his doctrine. So he goes to get checked. He presents himself to, I can only assume, the leaders in Jerusalem including Peter. It goes well. They deem that even Titus, who is working closely with Paul, need not be circumcised.
That is a servant leader. One who is willing to put himself to the same tests that he would hold others to. Hard to find that today.
Friday, May 15, 2020
Behavior Change (Galatians 1:11-24)
SCRIPTURE
Galatians 1:11-24
COMMENT
Paul claims that the gospel that he was preaching came directly from Jesus himself. But why believe him? I find at least two credible reasons. The first being, what did Paul have to gain in his conversion? Prior to the Damascus Road experience, Paul was on top of the world. A Jewish leader, perhaps in line to become High Priest someday. Educated, a Roman citizen, probably very well off. Conversion meant all of that would be gone, and that he would be shunned by the Jewish leaders as well as any family he had, a castoff, surrendering all possessions as well. (see Philippians 3:4-11)
The second reason is kind of mind blowing. Paul was a murderer of men, women, and children simply because they were Christians. He would now face that same fate from his former peers. I heard one preacher say it would be like seeing the conversion of Osama bin Ladin. Not only would his opponents mistrust him, but he would have to live in constant fear of retribution from his own peers. In fact, read verses 22-24. "And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me." I have never met Osama, but I know of his deeds. Had he suddenly turned a 180, I think it would be cause for consideration of why.
Paul says in verse 15 that he was set apart before he was born. I don't think God had a plan B. I don't believe that God had someone else waiting in the wings if Paul had refused. You can debate whether or not Paul had a choice in the matter, but Paul was God's man, and he would get the job done. There was no understudy. Called by God's grace, it says that God was pleased to reveal his Son to Paul. Think about that for a moment. A murderous sinner who violently pursued those who loved God, and God was pleased to reveal Jesus to him. It brought God joy. How can you not love a God whose grace is so abundant?
Galatians 1:11-24
COMMENT
Paul claims that the gospel that he was preaching came directly from Jesus himself. But why believe him? I find at least two credible reasons. The first being, what did Paul have to gain in his conversion? Prior to the Damascus Road experience, Paul was on top of the world. A Jewish leader, perhaps in line to become High Priest someday. Educated, a Roman citizen, probably very well off. Conversion meant all of that would be gone, and that he would be shunned by the Jewish leaders as well as any family he had, a castoff, surrendering all possessions as well. (see Philippians 3:4-11)
The second reason is kind of mind blowing. Paul was a murderer of men, women, and children simply because they were Christians. He would now face that same fate from his former peers. I heard one preacher say it would be like seeing the conversion of Osama bin Ladin. Not only would his opponents mistrust him, but he would have to live in constant fear of retribution from his own peers. In fact, read verses 22-24. "And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me." I have never met Osama, but I know of his deeds. Had he suddenly turned a 180, I think it would be cause for consideration of why.
Paul says in verse 15 that he was set apart before he was born. I don't think God had a plan B. I don't believe that God had someone else waiting in the wings if Paul had refused. You can debate whether or not Paul had a choice in the matter, but Paul was God's man, and he would get the job done. There was no understudy. Called by God's grace, it says that God was pleased to reveal his Son to Paul. Think about that for a moment. A murderous sinner who violently pursued those who loved God, and God was pleased to reveal Jesus to him. It brought God joy. How can you not love a God whose grace is so abundant?
Challies - 5 Worst Christian Best Sellers
Here is the video...
COMMENT
I plan to use a portion of this in a lesson I am preparing. I know that it might take some people by surprise, because I have heard the name Batterson in the class before. In fact, I believe that at one point when I was not there, they used some of his material for teaching.
One thought that has often struck me is this, if 20 to 40 years after Christ's resurrection, Paul had to spend time correcting doctrinal issues, how can we, 2,000 plus years later, think we have it right? But there is an inherent danger in being open minded. That danger is that maybe you were right in the first place, but now are wrong! But I think that is a risk that one must take, because being right by accident is more about being lucky than it is about being right, and if we are going to earnestly search the Scriptures to learn more, that is a risk we must take.
Or not, because I have met some who think they are right because that is the way their church believes, and they refuse to search any farther. Trust can be a dangerous thing.
COMMENT
I plan to use a portion of this in a lesson I am preparing. I know that it might take some people by surprise, because I have heard the name Batterson in the class before. In fact, I believe that at one point when I was not there, they used some of his material for teaching.
One thought that has often struck me is this, if 20 to 40 years after Christ's resurrection, Paul had to spend time correcting doctrinal issues, how can we, 2,000 plus years later, think we have it right? But there is an inherent danger in being open minded. That danger is that maybe you were right in the first place, but now are wrong! But I think that is a risk that one must take, because being right by accident is more about being lucky than it is about being right, and if we are going to earnestly search the Scriptures to learn more, that is a risk we must take.
Or not, because I have met some who think they are right because that is the way their church believes, and they refuse to search any farther. Trust can be a dangerous thing.
Friday, March 13, 2020
Which Team Are You On? (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)
SCRIPTURE
Matthew 13:24-30
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
Matthew 13:36-43
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
LANGUAGE
Vs 24 good - καλός kalos; beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), i.e. valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from 18, which is properly intrinsic)
Vs 25 weeds - ζιζάνιον zizanion; false grain: — tares.
BACKGROUND
Just prior to telling this parable, Jesus tells the Parable of Soils, in which he speaks of 4 different types of sol and how they represent the various responses to the Gospel. He then is questioned by his disciples as to why He speaks in parables. He states, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."
There seems to be a sense of understanding being given to some and not to others. While I struggle with understanding this, and again have many questions about these verses, I must most worry about my own heart and level of understanding, and pray that I am not among those who are dull or hard of hearing.
COMMENT
Today I just want to stick to what I see as the main idea of this parable, that being that in the kingdom of God on earth, the church, there will be sinners and saints, there will be those who are saved and those who are not, there will be true Christians and those who perhaps just believe themselves to be Christians OR are not really Christians at all. We don't know who is genuine and who is not, so for us to attempt to weed out the bad would inevitably tear out some of the real thing in the process. (See Matt 7:21-23)
This past Sunday, I sat in Sunday School, and the leader asked us to name some heroes. One person named Mark Batterson, a preacher and author you may or may not be familiar with. My personal opinion regarding this man is that he falls into the category of Prosperity Gospel preachers, and is one that I would identify as not a Christian, or perhaps even a wolf among Christians. What to do! Do I start a discussion about this man and his theology or let it go? If I do say something, am I ripping up some wheat with the weeds? I chose to remain silent, yet this choice still eats at me.
Sometimes you have to call a wolf a wolf. Scripture is clear about this. But I still am not sure that that was the time and place to do this. I think we have let God's people down as we have flocked to the feet of many wolves such as Joel Osteen, Mark Batterson, or Steven Furtick, making them millionaires grasping at a gospel that is not really a gospel at all. But perhaps even among the vast field of weeds that follow such teachers are stalks of wheat.
The main point Jesus is making here is that in the church there will be sheep and goats. While it is important for us to deal with this, it is not within our purview to label who is which. I notice that Jesus does not say treat all of the wheat and the weeds the same, but this would almost have to be the case in some instances. Maybe it is more about what we teach than about knocking someone who does not fall in line with our specific set of beliefs. God is the ultimate judge. Come harvest time, the wheat and weeds will no longer be treated the same. In the end, weeds are burned and wheat will shine like the sun. That is a hard teaching for someone who likes things to be neat and clean most of the time.
Matthew 13:24-30
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
Matthew 13:36-43
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
LANGUAGE
Vs 24 good - καλός kalos; beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), i.e. valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from 18, which is properly intrinsic)
Vs 25 weeds - ζιζάνιον zizanion; false grain: — tares.
BACKGROUND
Just prior to telling this parable, Jesus tells the Parable of Soils, in which he speaks of 4 different types of sol and how they represent the various responses to the Gospel. He then is questioned by his disciples as to why He speaks in parables. He states, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."
There seems to be a sense of understanding being given to some and not to others. While I struggle with understanding this, and again have many questions about these verses, I must most worry about my own heart and level of understanding, and pray that I am not among those who are dull or hard of hearing.
COMMENT
Today I just want to stick to what I see as the main idea of this parable, that being that in the kingdom of God on earth, the church, there will be sinners and saints, there will be those who are saved and those who are not, there will be true Christians and those who perhaps just believe themselves to be Christians OR are not really Christians at all. We don't know who is genuine and who is not, so for us to attempt to weed out the bad would inevitably tear out some of the real thing in the process. (See Matt 7:21-23)
This past Sunday, I sat in Sunday School, and the leader asked us to name some heroes. One person named Mark Batterson, a preacher and author you may or may not be familiar with. My personal opinion regarding this man is that he falls into the category of Prosperity Gospel preachers, and is one that I would identify as not a Christian, or perhaps even a wolf among Christians. What to do! Do I start a discussion about this man and his theology or let it go? If I do say something, am I ripping up some wheat with the weeds? I chose to remain silent, yet this choice still eats at me.
Sometimes you have to call a wolf a wolf. Scripture is clear about this. But I still am not sure that that was the time and place to do this. I think we have let God's people down as we have flocked to the feet of many wolves such as Joel Osteen, Mark Batterson, or Steven Furtick, making them millionaires grasping at a gospel that is not really a gospel at all. But perhaps even among the vast field of weeds that follow such teachers are stalks of wheat.
The main point Jesus is making here is that in the church there will be sheep and goats. While it is important for us to deal with this, it is not within our purview to label who is which. I notice that Jesus does not say treat all of the wheat and the weeds the same, but this would almost have to be the case in some instances. Maybe it is more about what we teach than about knocking someone who does not fall in line with our specific set of beliefs. God is the ultimate judge. Come harvest time, the wheat and weeds will no longer be treated the same. In the end, weeds are burned and wheat will shine like the sun. That is a hard teaching for someone who likes things to be neat and clean most of the time.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Seeing the good in light of the bad
I am currently reading the book, Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges.
I am picking up with the beginning of Chapter 3. In this chapter Bridges begins by discussing the destructive power of sin. Not only does sin destroy our union with God, but it also has destructive effects in other areas of our lives as well. And this is not just something that the unsaved must deal with, the Christian must deal with it as well.
Bridges states, "Now, here is the unvarnished truth that we need to lay to heart. Even though our hearts have been renewed, even though we have been freed from the absolute dominion of sin, even though God’s Holy Spirit dwells within our bodies, this principle of sin still lurks within us and wages war against our souls. It is the failure to recognize the awful reality of this truth that provides the fertile soil in which our “respectable” or “acceptable” sins grow and flourish." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 16). NavPress. Kindle Edition.)
In this chapter Bridges compares sin to cancer, something that he has personally felt the impact of in his own life. He shares how his wife was diagnosed with and then died of the disease. Sin, like cancer, is bad news. But that is part of the point of the gospel. If we don't see the bad news, how can we embrace the good news? But if we see the bad news as bad as it is, then the good news looks glorious!
I will end with this quote from Chapter 3, "God forgives our sin because of the shed blood of Christ, but He does not tolerate it. Instead, every sin that we commit, even the subtle sin that we don’t even think about, was laid upon Christ as He bore the curse of God in our place." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 22). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) When we begin to understand the meaning of that, the meaning of grace, the depth of our sin, then we can begin to appreciate the meaning of the gospel message.
Bridges states, "Now, here is the unvarnished truth that we need to lay to heart. Even though our hearts have been renewed, even though we have been freed from the absolute dominion of sin, even though God’s Holy Spirit dwells within our bodies, this principle of sin still lurks within us and wages war against our souls. It is the failure to recognize the awful reality of this truth that provides the fertile soil in which our “respectable” or “acceptable” sins grow and flourish." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 16). NavPress. Kindle Edition.)
In this chapter Bridges compares sin to cancer, something that he has personally felt the impact of in his own life. He shares how his wife was diagnosed with and then died of the disease. Sin, like cancer, is bad news. But that is part of the point of the gospel. If we don't see the bad news, how can we embrace the good news? But if we see the bad news as bad as it is, then the good news looks glorious!
I will end with this quote from Chapter 3, "God forgives our sin because of the shed blood of Christ, but He does not tolerate it. Instead, every sin that we commit, even the subtle sin that we don’t even think about, was laid upon Christ as He bore the curse of God in our place." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 22). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) When we begin to understand the meaning of that, the meaning of grace, the depth of our sin, then we can begin to appreciate the meaning of the gospel message.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Shhh...that might offend someone.
I am currently reading the book, Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges.
In chapter 2, he sets the premise that sin is not something that is discussed anymore by the average church goer, and perhaps something that is not even a issue for them.
But why? He gives this premise in the book, "It may have been softened in many of our churches so as not to make the audiences uncomfortable." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 12). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) I couldn't agree more. As one who has sat in on numerous committee meetings, the common theme is, "What can we do to make our church more attractive to others?" Bigger buildings, gyms, coffee bars, that what we need. What can we get rid of? Fire and brimstone, boring hymns, and lets stop mentioning sin. But there is an axiom I have often heard, "You win people to what you win them with." I doubt many Christians today could even articulate what the gospel truly is.
Of course, I think that some of the judgmental finger-pointing of some churches and Christians contributes to this idea. Picketing or even bombing abortion clinics is just one example that comes to mind. We want to show that we are accepting, although at times even that has it limits. Again, I believe that we tend to be more tolerant of this sins we might be guilty of, or the "Respectable Sins," than of those that would offend us.
The author states that this is a dark picture. I agree. Jesus said, "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" Luke (18:8b). My fear is that there are many in the church who are there for the wrong reasons, because they have been won through the wrong methods. If we don't believe in our own sinfulness, do we really have the faith that saves us?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
But why? He gives this premise in the book, "It may have been softened in many of our churches so as not to make the audiences uncomfortable." (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 12). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) I couldn't agree more. As one who has sat in on numerous committee meetings, the common theme is, "What can we do to make our church more attractive to others?" Bigger buildings, gyms, coffee bars, that what we need. What can we get rid of? Fire and brimstone, boring hymns, and lets stop mentioning sin. But there is an axiom I have often heard, "You win people to what you win them with." I doubt many Christians today could even articulate what the gospel truly is.
Of course, I think that some of the judgmental finger-pointing of some churches and Christians contributes to this idea. Picketing or even bombing abortion clinics is just one example that comes to mind. We want to show that we are accepting, although at times even that has it limits. Again, I believe that we tend to be more tolerant of this sins we might be guilty of, or the "Respectable Sins," than of those that would offend us.
The author states that this is a dark picture. I agree. Jesus said, "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" Luke (18:8b). My fear is that there are many in the church who are there for the wrong reasons, because they have been won through the wrong methods. If we don't believe in our own sinfulness, do we really have the faith that saves us?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
Monday, August 12, 2019
I'm looking for a cheap insurance policy.
Saw this on Facebook today. People are encouraged to copy and post.
Belief is a choice for some, but is it a choice for all? Did Pharaoh have a choice, or did God raise him up for a purpose. Did God harden his heart, or did he harden his own heart? There are those on both sides of that discussion. But why are Christians mocked? I believe there are multiple answers to that question. One is that faith in Jesus has brought harm to others. Ever heard of the Crusades? Or what about those who do not believe in getting medical treatment because of faith. Or what of acts of hatred and bigotry against gays or any other group that is "living in sin." (It is so much easier to point out the obvious sins of others rather than deal with my own imperfection (sin). Another is the discomfort many have when having to deal with their sin (I believe it is called a conscience). Didn't Jesus say, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." That sounds a little problematic and hurtful to me.
I don't believe that your faith makes you dumb, but it does make you a hypocrite. But only because we are all hypocrites when it comes down to it. Some worse than others. And again, this becomes something that those outside of Christ quickly recognize (their turn to point out our sin, rather than deal with their own. I call it the log and speck syndrome. Christians are not the only ones susceptible to the disease.)
I do not think those who believe are dumb, gullible, ignorant, etc., but I do believe that many who look to Christianity only as fire insurance are. The post states, "If we're wrong, what have we lost when we die?" To me, a lot. I have altered the way that I live my life because of my faith. I have given up things that other than my faith, I might not have given up. Only God knows how my life would have been different without faith. I believe Paul echoes this thought in 1 Cor. 15:19 when he states, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." If ever anyone altered his life for his faith, it was Paul.
I think that sharing faith as an "insurance policy for the afterlife" presents a wrong picture of saving faith to those who do not believe. Is this saving faith? I will say that I believe so that if there is a God he will take me into his kingdom? Would those who hold to this model of belief be interested in and able to pick up their cross and follow him? Is this the faith that Jesus proclaimed and died for? I personally don't think so.
Sorry, but I cannot accept your invitation to copy and paste. Not because I am ashamed of my faith in Christ, but because such a post does not reflect what I believe about faith.
I want to say something about Christianity. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, that's your choice! But why is it so important for many to mock those of us who do? If we're wrong, what have we lost when we die? Nothing! How does our faith in Jesus Christ bring others any harm? You think it makes me dumb? Gullible? Ignorant? That's okay. How does that affect you? But if you're wrong, your consequence is far worse. I would rather live my life believing in God and serving Him, and find out I was right, than not believe in Him and not serve Him, and find out I was wrong. Then it's too late. Ain't no shame in my game! I believe in Jesus Christ! He has been so good to me!! So it's kind of an insurance policy for the afterlife.
Here's my challenge:
If you're not ashamed of being a Christian, copy & paste this.
If you're not ashamed of being a Christian, copy & paste this.
Belief is a choice for some, but is it a choice for all? Did Pharaoh have a choice, or did God raise him up for a purpose. Did God harden his heart, or did he harden his own heart? There are those on both sides of that discussion. But why are Christians mocked? I believe there are multiple answers to that question. One is that faith in Jesus has brought harm to others. Ever heard of the Crusades? Or what about those who do not believe in getting medical treatment because of faith. Or what of acts of hatred and bigotry against gays or any other group that is "living in sin." (It is so much easier to point out the obvious sins of others rather than deal with my own imperfection (sin). Another is the discomfort many have when having to deal with their sin (I believe it is called a conscience). Didn't Jesus say, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." That sounds a little problematic and hurtful to me.
I don't believe that your faith makes you dumb, but it does make you a hypocrite. But only because we are all hypocrites when it comes down to it. Some worse than others. And again, this becomes something that those outside of Christ quickly recognize (their turn to point out our sin, rather than deal with their own. I call it the log and speck syndrome. Christians are not the only ones susceptible to the disease.)
I do not think those who believe are dumb, gullible, ignorant, etc., but I do believe that many who look to Christianity only as fire insurance are. The post states, "If we're wrong, what have we lost when we die?" To me, a lot. I have altered the way that I live my life because of my faith. I have given up things that other than my faith, I might not have given up. Only God knows how my life would have been different without faith. I believe Paul echoes this thought in 1 Cor. 15:19 when he states, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." If ever anyone altered his life for his faith, it was Paul.
I think that sharing faith as an "insurance policy for the afterlife" presents a wrong picture of saving faith to those who do not believe. Is this saving faith? I will say that I believe so that if there is a God he will take me into his kingdom? Would those who hold to this model of belief be interested in and able to pick up their cross and follow him? Is this the faith that Jesus proclaimed and died for? I personally don't think so.
Sorry, but I cannot accept your invitation to copy and paste. Not because I am ashamed of my faith in Christ, but because such a post does not reflect what I believe about faith.
Friday, August 9, 2019
Mirror, Mirror, on the wall...
I am currently reading the book, Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges.
I want to recap yesterday with this illustration. Bridges was talking about the word "saint" and its usage in the New Testament. The word saint is not about what we do (as might be the modern interpretation), but it is who we are. And we are the redeemed. So our actions are determined by who we are.
If you say the word saint in New Orleans, many people would think you are talking about a football player, as New Orleans is the home of the NFL team by that name. Their quarterback currently is Drew Brees. So by New Orleans standards, Drew Brees is a saint. And this is not based on his actions. If he throws a touchdown pass, he is a saint. If he throws an interception, he is a saint. The town does not disown him if he fails. If he retires, he will continue to be regarded as a saint.
So when Paul addresses fellow believers, he refers to them as saints. This is based on their status and not their behavior. In addressing the believers in Corinth, there were some issues, but these issues did not keep Paul from referring to them as saints. The idea being set forth is we too, need to think of ourselves as saints. But many who profess Christianity don't. Nor do many think of themselves as sinners.
A recent example of this can be seen on the TV reality show, the Bachelorette. Apparently, there is a woman on the show who professes to be a Christian. Yet this woman admits to having sex with contestants on the show. When confronted by another contestant, also a professing Christian, about this behavior, she sent him packing. According to this article, she stated, “I have had sex and, like, Jesus still loves me.” The article also quotes her as saying, “Guess what? Sex might be a sin out of marriage, pride is a sin, too, and I feel like this is like a pride thing,” Brown said. “I feel like I’ve finally gotten clarity on you and I do not want you to be my husband.”
Is she a saint? That is up to God. Does she see herself as a saint? Does she herself as a sinner? It appears that the answer to both of those questions is no.
How do you see yourself? How do I see myself?
If you say the word saint in New Orleans, many people would think you are talking about a football player, as New Orleans is the home of the NFL team by that name. Their quarterback currently is Drew Brees. So by New Orleans standards, Drew Brees is a saint. And this is not based on his actions. If he throws a touchdown pass, he is a saint. If he throws an interception, he is a saint. The town does not disown him if he fails. If he retires, he will continue to be regarded as a saint.
So when Paul addresses fellow believers, he refers to them as saints. This is based on their status and not their behavior. In addressing the believers in Corinth, there were some issues, but these issues did not keep Paul from referring to them as saints. The idea being set forth is we too, need to think of ourselves as saints. But many who profess Christianity don't. Nor do many think of themselves as sinners.
A recent example of this can be seen on the TV reality show, the Bachelorette. Apparently, there is a woman on the show who professes to be a Christian. Yet this woman admits to having sex with contestants on the show. When confronted by another contestant, also a professing Christian, about this behavior, she sent him packing. According to this article, she stated, “I have had sex and, like, Jesus still loves me.” The article also quotes her as saying, “Guess what? Sex might be a sin out of marriage, pride is a sin, too, and I feel like this is like a pride thing,” Brown said. “I feel like I’ve finally gotten clarity on you and I do not want you to be my husband.”
Is she a saint? That is up to God. Does she see herself as a saint? Does she herself as a sinner? It appears that the answer to both of those questions is no.
How do you see yourself? How do I see myself?
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Putting on the other shoe
I am currently reading the book, Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges.
In yesterday's post, I hit on the idea that the gospel is not a message about "if you just ask Jesus into your heart, you can go to heaven." But the other shoe in that pair must also be addressed. The gospel is also more than "do better, try harder, and maybe when God weighs your deeds at the eternal roll-call, you fill have enough goodness to make it through.
Bridges begins chapter 1 by talking about the word, "saints." I think when most of us hear this word, we think of someone who, by virtue of multiple noble actions, has achieved a status beyond the normal person, sometimes referred to as a godly person. The Catholic church gives the title to those who have done just that. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses the Corinthians as saints. Now if you get to reading the text, you can clearly see that these people were not more noble than most. In fact, they had quite a few flaws within their character. Bridges states, The answer lies in the meaning of the word as it is used in the Bible. The Greek word for saint is hagios, and it refers not to one’s character but to a state of being. Its literal meaning is “one who is separated unto God.” (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 2). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) So in Biblical usage, a saint is not defined by a person's character or behavior, but rather by their status as someone whom Christ has brought into a saved relationship.
This has huge implications for us, especially within the current American theology of what makes a Christian. Biblically, a saint is defined by belonging to Christ, and not exemplary behavior. It's not that our behavior is unimportant, and Paul' admonitions throughout the New Testament confirm this, but it is that our ability to conform to those behaviors does not determine our status when it comes to being in Christ. That is why messages that only deal with our behavior will never truly represent the gospel. Messages that only promote positive thinking, messages that do not take into consideration our sinful state, messages that tell us how to have our best life now, these types of messages take away from the gospel by drawing people into believing they have heard the gospel.
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:14-15)
When it comes to gospel living, we must recognize who we are before we decide how we will act. Do you give generously? So do others who do not believe. Do you honor your wife, tell the truth (most of the time), have not murdered, don't get drunk, don't worship idols, etc.? So have others who do not believe. So what makes the difference? It is who we are. We are saints, we are sinners saved by grace, we are believers who look at God and see Him as beautiful because of His mercy and grace. And we respond accordingly. Not perfectly, but accordingly. Bridges uses the military analogy of officers in the army. As officers, a certain level of behavior is expected. Perhaps you have heard the expression, "Conduct unbecoming an officer." So their rank defines them, and the behavior follows. Soldiers who also act in manner similar to that of an officer do not become officers by their behavior. Rank defines them. And us. We are saints first, and should act accordingly.
Bridges begins chapter 1 by talking about the word, "saints." I think when most of us hear this word, we think of someone who, by virtue of multiple noble actions, has achieved a status beyond the normal person, sometimes referred to as a godly person. The Catholic church gives the title to those who have done just that. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses the Corinthians as saints. Now if you get to reading the text, you can clearly see that these people were not more noble than most. In fact, they had quite a few flaws within their character. Bridges states, The answer lies in the meaning of the word as it is used in the Bible. The Greek word for saint is hagios, and it refers not to one’s character but to a state of being. Its literal meaning is “one who is separated unto God.” (Bridges, Jerry. Respectable Sins (p. 2). NavPress. Kindle Edition.) So in Biblical usage, a saint is not defined by a person's character or behavior, but rather by their status as someone whom Christ has brought into a saved relationship.
This has huge implications for us, especially within the current American theology of what makes a Christian. Biblically, a saint is defined by belonging to Christ, and not exemplary behavior. It's not that our behavior is unimportant, and Paul' admonitions throughout the New Testament confirm this, but it is that our ability to conform to those behaviors does not determine our status when it comes to being in Christ. That is why messages that only deal with our behavior will never truly represent the gospel. Messages that only promote positive thinking, messages that do not take into consideration our sinful state, messages that tell us how to have our best life now, these types of messages take away from the gospel by drawing people into believing they have heard the gospel.
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:14-15)
When it comes to gospel living, we must recognize who we are before we decide how we will act. Do you give generously? So do others who do not believe. Do you honor your wife, tell the truth (most of the time), have not murdered, don't get drunk, don't worship idols, etc.? So have others who do not believe. So what makes the difference? It is who we are. We are saints, we are sinners saved by grace, we are believers who look at God and see Him as beautiful because of His mercy and grace. And we respond accordingly. Not perfectly, but accordingly. Bridges uses the military analogy of officers in the army. As officers, a certain level of behavior is expected. Perhaps you have heard the expression, "Conduct unbecoming an officer." So their rank defines them, and the behavior follows. Soldiers who also act in manner similar to that of an officer do not become officers by their behavior. Rank defines them. And us. We are saints first, and should act accordingly.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Which is it?
Our Sunday School leader made a curious statement the other day. He was teaching on the chapter of "God's Astounding Opinion of You" (by Ralph Harris) that deals with the issue of God being our friend. I believe it is chapter 10, if not, it is close. He stated that he did not feel that this chapter was very theological, but none-the-less, it was a good chapter.
To quote Inigo Montoya (of the Princess Bride), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The word "theology" can easily be broken into two parts, "theo" (God) and "ology" (the study of). And what topic could be more theological that God's character and what it is He thinks of us? This should shape the very depths of how we view Him!
So during this lesson, we spent some time in Matthew 15, verses 12-15. Some commented on verse 16, where it says "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide."
So here is my theological question, one that has many implications and I believe must be wrestled with. What does it mean that God chooses (elects, determines, predestines, or whatever label you want to give it) and how does He choose?
Does He choose like the NFL draft, based on some attributes that we possess? Or is it more like sticking His hand into a bowl of M&M's and randomly getting a handful of different colors? I have my thoughts on this, which I hope to share, but for now it is off to work!
To quote Inigo Montoya (of the Princess Bride), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The word "theology" can easily be broken into two parts, "theo" (God) and "ology" (the study of). And what topic could be more theological that God's character and what it is He thinks of us? This should shape the very depths of how we view Him!
So during this lesson, we spent some time in Matthew 15, verses 12-15. Some commented on verse 16, where it says "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide."
So here is my theological question, one that has many implications and I believe must be wrestled with. What does it mean that God chooses (elects, determines, predestines, or whatever label you want to give it) and how does He choose?
Does He choose like the NFL draft, based on some attributes that we possess? Or is it more like sticking His hand into a bowl of M&M's and randomly getting a handful of different colors? I have my thoughts on this, which I hope to share, but for now it is off to work!
Thursday, January 3, 2013
A Treasure Hidden...
Galatians 2:15-16
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Paul starts out by referencing his birthright, that of a Jew, one of God's chosen race. The Jews sinned as did the Gentiles, they just did it under a measure of grace, as God's chosen children. I believe that Paul wants all to understand that it was grace, and not their ability to live a sinless live that set the Jews apart. I believe this because he goes on to say that he knows that "a person is not justified by works of the law."
This is such a radical departure from his previous beliefs, but I believe that Paul now holds to this for 2 very important reasons. First, because God has opened his eyes to a very inconvenient truth (apologies to Mr. Gore). Without God removing the blinders, how can a man every honestly surrender his sincerely held misconceptions, especially when to change your thoughts comes at such a high cost? Second, having had his blinders removed, he could see the senselessness of what he had held to and the beauty of the truth. Can a man really live a sinless life and have the Almighty God of the universe look upon him with approval? Can a man hope to achieve salvation by following a set of rules? Is this the message of the Old Testament, the foundation for the gospel message? Or, was the Old Testament preparing us for the reality of Christ, and that by faith in him we might be justified?
This is the message of the gospel, and it is found somewhat hidden for some in the cracks of every passage. But I see it hiding in there, and I pray that you might see it to. Your rules, they do not save you. Try as you might to please God, you can't unless you first come to him in faith. You can't, unless you first see him as beautiful and love him. (Luke 19:20-27 comes to mind)
We are children of God by birth, and not Gentile sinners! Praise God!
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Paul starts out by referencing his birthright, that of a Jew, one of God's chosen race. The Jews sinned as did the Gentiles, they just did it under a measure of grace, as God's chosen children. I believe that Paul wants all to understand that it was grace, and not their ability to live a sinless live that set the Jews apart. I believe this because he goes on to say that he knows that "a person is not justified by works of the law."
This is such a radical departure from his previous beliefs, but I believe that Paul now holds to this for 2 very important reasons. First, because God has opened his eyes to a very inconvenient truth (apologies to Mr. Gore). Without God removing the blinders, how can a man every honestly surrender his sincerely held misconceptions, especially when to change your thoughts comes at such a high cost? Second, having had his blinders removed, he could see the senselessness of what he had held to and the beauty of the truth. Can a man really live a sinless life and have the Almighty God of the universe look upon him with approval? Can a man hope to achieve salvation by following a set of rules? Is this the message of the Old Testament, the foundation for the gospel message? Or, was the Old Testament preparing us for the reality of Christ, and that by faith in him we might be justified?
This is the message of the gospel, and it is found somewhat hidden for some in the cracks of every passage. But I see it hiding in there, and I pray that you might see it to. Your rules, they do not save you. Try as you might to please God, you can't unless you first come to him in faith. You can't, unless you first see him as beautiful and love him. (Luke 19:20-27 comes to mind)
We are children of God by birth, and not Gentile sinners! Praise God!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Calvin and Me - Part 4
Limited Atonement
My understanding of limited atonement is that it means that the saving grace that comes from the cross was limited to those who God elected to be saved, that it was not an offer to all mankind. Armenians believe in unlimited atonement, that the offer of salvation is given to everyone, but only those who accept it will receive salvation. Either way, not everyone gets a free pass to heaven. (Sorry, Rob Bell)
What I take out of this is simply that both groups kinda agree but look at it from a different perspective.
I am not a militant Calvinist. I believe that God has predestined to save some Armenians, and will reveal the truth to them later.
But here is something for the militants of both camps to think about. I recently read a blog comment where the author said, "This is unacceptable to me for a whole bunch of reasons. (I can never believe that God creates hopeless people.)" The author was speaking about predestination. I can't say that I have the definitive answer to any question when it comes to God, but for me to say something that God might do is "unacceptable" seems rather dangerous. Especially from someone who stereotypically downs Calvinists. What is God does elect? Does He not have the right to make pottery that is for noble use and pottery that is disposable? Can't He use Tupperware and aluminum foil to store His leftovers? He is God, and what is man that He is mindful of him? Or what if in grace God's atonement is unlimited? Does that mean you would refuse a ride on the escalator to Heaven because someone got on who was not elected? I love theology and embrace certain beliefs, and that does affect who I am and how I respond to God and ultimately to others. But I must not let my theology become my God.
I don't think God bases salvation on our view of atonement.
My understanding of limited atonement is that it means that the saving grace that comes from the cross was limited to those who God elected to be saved, that it was not an offer to all mankind. Armenians believe in unlimited atonement, that the offer of salvation is given to everyone, but only those who accept it will receive salvation. Either way, not everyone gets a free pass to heaven. (Sorry, Rob Bell)
What I take out of this is simply that both groups kinda agree but look at it from a different perspective.
I am not a militant Calvinist. I believe that God has predestined to save some Armenians, and will reveal the truth to them later.
But here is something for the militants of both camps to think about. I recently read a blog comment where the author said, "This is unacceptable to me for a whole bunch of reasons. (I can never believe that God creates hopeless people.)" The author was speaking about predestination. I can't say that I have the definitive answer to any question when it comes to God, but for me to say something that God might do is "unacceptable" seems rather dangerous. Especially from someone who stereotypically downs Calvinists. What is God does elect? Does He not have the right to make pottery that is for noble use and pottery that is disposable? Can't He use Tupperware and aluminum foil to store His leftovers? He is God, and what is man that He is mindful of him? Or what if in grace God's atonement is unlimited? Does that mean you would refuse a ride on the escalator to Heaven because someone got on who was not elected? I love theology and embrace certain beliefs, and that does affect who I am and how I respond to God and ultimately to others. But I must not let my theology become my God.
I don't think God bases salvation on our view of atonement.
Calvin and Me - Part 3
Total Depravity
After what I have seen personally, and read in the Bible, it would be hard to convince me otherwise. The Pharisees, even after seeing the miracles of Jesus, only wanted to squash His ministry and eventually kill Him when things progressed. Does anyone else find it ironic that they wanted to kill a man who could raise people from the dead? They wanted to kill a man who knew what they were thinking? Talk about blind, these men were it.
I also think about my experiences at my previous church, University Christian Church of Muncie, Indiana. These men defended their pastor and their own line of thought without ever even listening to, let alone considering anything else. They violated Scriptural procedure, but certainly had their justifications for doing so. Now who does that sound like?
I see it in my classroom. One minute a student genuine repents of their behavior, promising to make a complete and total turn, only to quickly find themselves back in the same or worse behaviors than before.
Total depravity: The belief that there is nothing good in us, nothing that would cause us to turn to God without His divine intervention. For more on the subject, click here.
Try as I might, I cannot do anything good without God's help. It's not that I can't do things that might be considered good. But even in these things, without a cleansing and a turning brought about by the Spirit, I still am only seeking to fulfill my own sinful desires. Just like the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal, who stays and is obedient, but only because he values his inheritance, and not his father. This is evidenced by the response said son has when he finds out about his father's response to his brother's return.
Why does this appeal to me? Because it makes God's acceptance of me the basis of my salvation, and not my acceptance of Him! That is the ultimate beauty! God loves me, and sent His Son for me! Rather than a blanket, "Anyone who follows this formula" it becomes a loving act of a gracious God. I wish I could explain it better, and I will deal with this topic again under the P of Tulip, Predesination. But for know, since I am dealing with the idea of total depravity, I will stop there.
I know that Calvinists are not the only ones to believe in this doctrine. I think that is great. But for me, it just fits in with the puzzle of God and His grace as an intrical piece of their theology. Knowing that I have nothing good in me humbles me. It makes me bow down and beat my breast, just like the tax-collector did while the Pharisee stood near-by extolling his virtues to God in his prayer. It reveals to me a wonderful aspect of God's grace that I need to always keep before me. If Paul is the worst of sinners, I need to see myself as the second worst.
After what I have seen personally, and read in the Bible, it would be hard to convince me otherwise. The Pharisees, even after seeing the miracles of Jesus, only wanted to squash His ministry and eventually kill Him when things progressed. Does anyone else find it ironic that they wanted to kill a man who could raise people from the dead? They wanted to kill a man who knew what they were thinking? Talk about blind, these men were it.
I also think about my experiences at my previous church, University Christian Church of Muncie, Indiana. These men defended their pastor and their own line of thought without ever even listening to, let alone considering anything else. They violated Scriptural procedure, but certainly had their justifications for doing so. Now who does that sound like?
I see it in my classroom. One minute a student genuine repents of their behavior, promising to make a complete and total turn, only to quickly find themselves back in the same or worse behaviors than before.
Total depravity: The belief that there is nothing good in us, nothing that would cause us to turn to God without His divine intervention. For more on the subject, click here.
Try as I might, I cannot do anything good without God's help. It's not that I can't do things that might be considered good. But even in these things, without a cleansing and a turning brought about by the Spirit, I still am only seeking to fulfill my own sinful desires. Just like the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal, who stays and is obedient, but only because he values his inheritance, and not his father. This is evidenced by the response said son has when he finds out about his father's response to his brother's return.
Why does this appeal to me? Because it makes God's acceptance of me the basis of my salvation, and not my acceptance of Him! That is the ultimate beauty! God loves me, and sent His Son for me! Rather than a blanket, "Anyone who follows this formula" it becomes a loving act of a gracious God. I wish I could explain it better, and I will deal with this topic again under the P of Tulip, Predesination. But for know, since I am dealing with the idea of total depravity, I will stop there.
I know that Calvinists are not the only ones to believe in this doctrine. I think that is great. But for me, it just fits in with the puzzle of God and His grace as an intrical piece of their theology. Knowing that I have nothing good in me humbles me. It makes me bow down and beat my breast, just like the tax-collector did while the Pharisee stood near-by extolling his virtues to God in his prayer. It reveals to me a wonderful aspect of God's grace that I need to always keep before me. If Paul is the worst of sinners, I need to see myself as the second worst.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Calvin and me - Part 2
So here I am at a spiritual crossroads. This is when for whatever reason (perhaps it was predestined) I picked up a couple of books by 2 authors who are Calvinists. But I did not know that at the time.
The first book was "Desiring God" by John Piper. I felt it a thick and difficult read at times, but I devoured it anyway. His premise of Christian Hedonism was intriguing, and on many levels made a lot of sense. Now it was me vesting my joy in the beauty of a wonderful, sovereign God, instead of God vesting his enjoyment in me. "God is most glorified when I am most satisfied in Him," as Piper puts it. Calvinism or not, this is holy and righteous stuff.
The second book was one by Jared C. Wilson, Your Jesus is too Safe." In light of my experiences and feelings, it was just the right title at the right time. More great stuff about how God is at the center and I am not. These Calvinist guys definitely have a way of speaking to my heart.
The God lowered the boom. I found out about a Calvinist preacher named Matt Chandler. I saw his witness in the midst of a devastating diagnosis that might cost him his life. I started listening to his preaching. It was more than just telling me what to do, every message seemed to have a theological base of God on high and me not. He painted his messages with strokes that even in the midst of hard teachings made God look beautiful. My heart was changing. I wanted to know more about this kind of God. What followed was books by Platt, Tchivijian, more Piper, Chan, and others. These men were showing me that it was not enough to get to heaven, but I needed to love and worship the God who was enthroned there. And He is lovable!
They also let me see that God loves me. But just because He loves me doesn't give me a blank check to do whatever I want. I need to love Him in return. Through these men, I have seen a God that before has been unknown to me. A God that has seen me through some incredible ordeals. A God who is molding me, perhaps for some things in this life, and definitely for some things in the next.
I haven't (yet) finished reading Calvin's Institutes. I have begun a book by Jonathon Edwards. And I don't agree with everything I have read. But I am in good company, because they don't all agree with one another either. Am I a Calvinist? Perhaps. There is much that I agree with, much that I find beautiful and that I find to agree with Scripture. Time will tell as I joyfully continue this path with a much more open mind than ever before.
The first book was "Desiring God" by John Piper. I felt it a thick and difficult read at times, but I devoured it anyway. His premise of Christian Hedonism was intriguing, and on many levels made a lot of sense. Now it was me vesting my joy in the beauty of a wonderful, sovereign God, instead of God vesting his enjoyment in me. "God is most glorified when I am most satisfied in Him," as Piper puts it. Calvinism or not, this is holy and righteous stuff.
The second book was one by Jared C. Wilson, Your Jesus is too Safe." In light of my experiences and feelings, it was just the right title at the right time. More great stuff about how God is at the center and I am not. These Calvinist guys definitely have a way of speaking to my heart.
The God lowered the boom. I found out about a Calvinist preacher named Matt Chandler. I saw his witness in the midst of a devastating diagnosis that might cost him his life. I started listening to his preaching. It was more than just telling me what to do, every message seemed to have a theological base of God on high and me not. He painted his messages with strokes that even in the midst of hard teachings made God look beautiful. My heart was changing. I wanted to know more about this kind of God. What followed was books by Platt, Tchivijian, more Piper, Chan, and others. These men were showing me that it was not enough to get to heaven, but I needed to love and worship the God who was enthroned there. And He is lovable!
They also let me see that God loves me. But just because He loves me doesn't give me a blank check to do whatever I want. I need to love Him in return. Through these men, I have seen a God that before has been unknown to me. A God that has seen me through some incredible ordeals. A God who is molding me, perhaps for some things in this life, and definitely for some things in the next.
I haven't (yet) finished reading Calvin's Institutes. I have begun a book by Jonathon Edwards. And I don't agree with everything I have read. But I am in good company, because they don't all agree with one another either. Am I a Calvinist? Perhaps. There is much that I agree with, much that I find beautiful and that I find to agree with Scripture. Time will tell as I joyfully continue this path with a much more open mind than ever before.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Pete and Repeat
I wish I could say that my experience with University Christian Church, as detailed in previous posts, was a unique one. But it is not. I am finding that it is more common than I could have thought. I have read numerous blog posts of people who have gone through similar experiences. My own previous experiences also hold some similarities.
It was somewhere around the time that I started blogging that God started putting some crazy thoughts in my head. The church I was attending was going through Eric Rees's book, S.H.A.P.E. I was studying it with our small group, and was finding some statements and thoughts that bothered me. It seemed that everything about God was really about me. One statement that has stuck with me is about how our strengths and abilities show God's glory. But what about our weaknesses and inabilities? Isn't the true glory of God found in how He fills what is lacking in me? He concluded with a challenge to take a 90 day test drive into service. If it works, keep going, if not, you have only lost 90 days. Is that the message of the cross, or is it a message designed to grow a church by catering to people's whims and fancy?
When I sought out some of the leaders of the church, responses were varied, but ultimately no one wanted to really discuss that matter. One of the ministers told me that "I don't have time to debate theology with you." Really? Have I mentioned that I was an elder at the church? Others in various capacities of leadership had mixed responses to the book, but since the 40 study was over, what did it matter now?
That was the beginning of a journey for me that has awakened a desire in me to know more of God. Not a desire to do more or be a better Christian. Those things may be good, but without a solid understanding of God and who He is and how I should relate to Him, I fear that those other things ultimately will not matter. Well, they will, just not in the way that some will expect them to. Read Matthew 7:21-23, I dare ya!
It was somewhere around the time that I started blogging that God started putting some crazy thoughts in my head. The church I was attending was going through Eric Rees's book, S.H.A.P.E. I was studying it with our small group, and was finding some statements and thoughts that bothered me. It seemed that everything about God was really about me. One statement that has stuck with me is about how our strengths and abilities show God's glory. But what about our weaknesses and inabilities? Isn't the true glory of God found in how He fills what is lacking in me? He concluded with a challenge to take a 90 day test drive into service. If it works, keep going, if not, you have only lost 90 days. Is that the message of the cross, or is it a message designed to grow a church by catering to people's whims and fancy?
When I sought out some of the leaders of the church, responses were varied, but ultimately no one wanted to really discuss that matter. One of the ministers told me that "I don't have time to debate theology with you." Really? Have I mentioned that I was an elder at the church? Others in various capacities of leadership had mixed responses to the book, but since the 40 study was over, what did it matter now?
That was the beginning of a journey for me that has awakened a desire in me to know more of God. Not a desire to do more or be a better Christian. Those things may be good, but without a solid understanding of God and who He is and how I should relate to Him, I fear that those other things ultimately will not matter. Well, they will, just not in the way that some will expect them to. Read Matthew 7:21-23, I dare ya!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Still More Background Info
After a few frustrating visits at various nearby churches, we were invited to attend a church in Muncie, about a 20 minute drive for us. Location is important, as the farther the church the harder it is to get connected. And while we did not feel that this church was perfect, as my wife and I talked about it, we both felt that God was tugging at our hearts to put some roots down here for a while. One of the issues that concerned me was I felt that the sermons were weak. They relied much more on presentation than on content. The pastor later confirmed this, in my opinion, when he taught a class on communicating. Although I was not present for the class, I received the outline and handouts. A lot of emphasis was placed on dress, use of humor, etc., and very little on content. I have heard a lot of speakers in my days, and for me the ones that have the greatest impact are those who have a passion for their topic, and not those who might otherwise be considered the most effective communicators. (1 Cor 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.")One of the bright spots in this congregation was the people. They seemed friendly and sincere. Another positive was our Sunday School class. Our first Sunday there, we were greeted by the preacher. Somehow in that first week, I cannot recall for sure if it was via letter or direct communication, we were told that the pastor would like to follow up and visit with us soon. Four weeks later I mentioned to my friend my disappointment that this had never occurred. The following Sunday pastor told me he wanted to meet with us, and could we schedule a time to come to his office. Coincidence? I don't know. But he asked us to schedule an appointment to meet with him in his office, and we did.
We showed up for our first meeting. It felt a bit awkward for some reason. We sat down and had some small talk. Talk turned to church membership. We were very upfront, as we explained with some detail what our previous experience had been like, and how we were a bit gun shy about jumping right in without having a real knowledge of the church yet. We were assured that University Christian Church was not that kind of place. I had my doubts, but I wanted to keep an open mind.
The pastor shared a little bit about his history with the church, and the church's history as well. I still don't know all of the facts, but the church had just been through a split prior to his coming, and had had some difficulties in the past. I think that explains a lot about their current demeanor. Anything that hints of being a problem seems to be swept away, and all is handshakes and smiles. A facade is put up that paints such a pretty picture. (Mt 23:27 comes to mind). Is there an elephant in the room? I don't see no stinkin' elephant!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)