In this (very short) podcast, I discuss why I am a Christian, and not an atheist as I once was.
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Most Important Thing a Christian Should Know
Imagine in your head that it's World War II, and the Normandy beachhead is about to be invaded. A plane carrying elements of the 82nd Airborne is flying over the drop zones, and the soldiers are preparing to leap out. Then, two soldiers engage in a conversation.
"Do you think your chute will open?" says the first one.
The second shrugs, "I hope so."
The first one is taken aback by this, and he asks, "Do you know how to open your chute?"
"No."
"Do you know how to guide yourself after it's opened?"
"Nope."
"Do you know how to land when you get to the ground?"
"I couldn't tell you. But I hope things work out!"
Imagine all that unfolding...what would you make of it? You would probably imagine the second soldier was foolish, or at fault for not doing his homework. You would have figured someone doing something as important as jumping from a plane would have done just a little bit more research for assurance. You would think that, of all topics an airborne soldier would need to know, how to handle your parachute should have been top of his priorities.
And yet, many Christians are this exact same way in regards to their salvation.
I have met many who called themselves Christians and yet only had a vague idea of their salvation. Ask them what scripture teaches on salvation, and they'll tell you, "I don't know." Ask them how their salvation functions in relation to God, and they'll say, "I don't know." Ask them if they're saved, and they'll say, "I hope so." The importance of the matter seems completely lost on them.
Folks, the fact of the matter is that salvation is important. Eternity is a long time. When you are resurrected, there will be no second chance to do some studying and make certain you truly were saved, just as there is no second chance to make certain your parachute works once you jump out of an airplane. If you are in this camp of "I hope I'm saved," I would strongly encourage you to take this time now to study what scripture teaches about salvation - not just how to be saved but what happens after you are saved. It is the most important thing you will ever study, and will carry the greatest benefits. You will find that you will have great assurance, and receive comfort. You will have no doubt that, once you jump out of that plane, your chute will indeed open.
"Do you think your chute will open?" says the first one.
The second shrugs, "I hope so."
The first one is taken aback by this, and he asks, "Do you know how to open your chute?"
"No."
"Do you know how to guide yourself after it's opened?"
"Nope."
"Do you know how to land when you get to the ground?"
"I couldn't tell you. But I hope things work out!"
Imagine all that unfolding...what would you make of it? You would probably imagine the second soldier was foolish, or at fault for not doing his homework. You would have figured someone doing something as important as jumping from a plane would have done just a little bit more research for assurance. You would think that, of all topics an airborne soldier would need to know, how to handle your parachute should have been top of his priorities.
And yet, many Christians are this exact same way in regards to their salvation.
I have met many who called themselves Christians and yet only had a vague idea of their salvation. Ask them what scripture teaches on salvation, and they'll tell you, "I don't know." Ask them how their salvation functions in relation to God, and they'll say, "I don't know." Ask them if they're saved, and they'll say, "I hope so." The importance of the matter seems completely lost on them.
Folks, the fact of the matter is that salvation is important. Eternity is a long time. When you are resurrected, there will be no second chance to do some studying and make certain you truly were saved, just as there is no second chance to make certain your parachute works once you jump out of an airplane. If you are in this camp of "I hope I'm saved," I would strongly encourage you to take this time now to study what scripture teaches about salvation - not just how to be saved but what happens after you are saved. It is the most important thing you will ever study, and will carry the greatest benefits. You will find that you will have great assurance, and receive comfort. You will have no doubt that, once you jump out of that plane, your chute will indeed open.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Whose Faith is Truly Special?
A while ago, I entered a discussion with someone that covered the topic of synergism versus monergism. The accusation was made my way that my theology turned men into prideful beings, as they looked upon their faith as though it made them better than others with no faith.
My response was that "my theology" (not that I myself invented it, or it rises and falls on my account, but rather it is the theology to which I adhere) could hardly make men prideful. For one, it was given to men as a gift, on account of nothing that they did (cf. Eph 2:8-9). For another, this gift was given completely undeserved. The Lord could have bypassed Tony-Allen and left him an unregenerated sinner, and He would have been perfectly just in doing so - instead, He effectually called him into the fold, for no other reason than His purpose and will (cf. Rom 9:10-11), and owing to nothing but His mercy (cf. Rom 9:18).
Upon what basis can I place my pride? That I was a sinner worthy of damnation? That our blessed Lord had to die to atone for sins which I could never repay? That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to suffer on my behalf and fulfill all requirements of the Law, because I could not do it myself? That it was by the working of the Spirit that my heart was regenerated and not because I was smarter, kinder, or more holy to do it myself? Where in all this can I truly have pride? How can I look upon my faith as proving I'm better than someone without faith when I recognize: 1) that faith is not my own to begin with; 2) sans this faith and regeneration given by God, I would be no different than the person without faith?
I then told the person that it was their own theology, in fact, which led to prideful thinking. This was because they say that God calls to everyone, and pleads with everyone, and it's up to us to respond of our own power (a rather Semi-Pelagian position). What, then, made them so much more smarter and better than the atheist next door? What made them different than a person who rejects the gospel to their dying day? They would have to be intellectually honest and say that it's because they were somehow better, smarter, or more receptive of the gospel. They were, in essence, somehow better than the other person.
I recognize, of course, that few synergistic testimonies are about how great and wonderful they are, and most synergists are themselves humble Christians. However, their position in regards to salvation - when truly examined - states that part of their salvation was owed to them. They contributed to it. Even if it was a mere 1% out of 99%, they were still responsible for that 1%, without which God would have failed. They were able to contribute 1% by their own accord, making themselves better and, in some respects, far more religious than those who rejected God and did not fulfill that 1%. My position, on the other hand, states that God's contribution was 100% His doing. I offered nothing to the table except my own sin, for which God had to suffer, atone for, and then absolve by grace through faith, bringing me to repentance. There is no room for me to be prideful.
Some might say, "But can't you be prideful that God chose you over someone else?" I respond by repeating what I mentioned earlier: that Christ had to die for me in the first place, to atone for my sins, shames me from any possible pride. With the idea of election comes the responsibility of recognizing that your atonement was paid for at a price (cf. 1 Cor 7:23). I am no more prideful that God granted me faith, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice, than I am prideful that I love today in freedom because an American soldier in a foreign land died on my account. My salvation was paid for with the atoning blood of Christ, and there is no pride that can be taken from that.
There is only one thing I am prideful one, but it is not pride of my own, but pride I throw upon God, the one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and gave Himself so that my betrothed and I can be among His flock. All glory that could possibly go to me I redirect to the Lord, and all who desire salvation I point towards Him. God bless.
My response was that "my theology" (not that I myself invented it, or it rises and falls on my account, but rather it is the theology to which I adhere) could hardly make men prideful. For one, it was given to men as a gift, on account of nothing that they did (cf. Eph 2:8-9). For another, this gift was given completely undeserved. The Lord could have bypassed Tony-Allen and left him an unregenerated sinner, and He would have been perfectly just in doing so - instead, He effectually called him into the fold, for no other reason than His purpose and will (cf. Rom 9:10-11), and owing to nothing but His mercy (cf. Rom 9:18).
Upon what basis can I place my pride? That I was a sinner worthy of damnation? That our blessed Lord had to die to atone for sins which I could never repay? That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to suffer on my behalf and fulfill all requirements of the Law, because I could not do it myself? That it was by the working of the Spirit that my heart was regenerated and not because I was smarter, kinder, or more holy to do it myself? Where in all this can I truly have pride? How can I look upon my faith as proving I'm better than someone without faith when I recognize: 1) that faith is not my own to begin with; 2) sans this faith and regeneration given by God, I would be no different than the person without faith?
I then told the person that it was their own theology, in fact, which led to prideful thinking. This was because they say that God calls to everyone, and pleads with everyone, and it's up to us to respond of our own power (a rather Semi-Pelagian position). What, then, made them so much more smarter and better than the atheist next door? What made them different than a person who rejects the gospel to their dying day? They would have to be intellectually honest and say that it's because they were somehow better, smarter, or more receptive of the gospel. They were, in essence, somehow better than the other person.
I recognize, of course, that few synergistic testimonies are about how great and wonderful they are, and most synergists are themselves humble Christians. However, their position in regards to salvation - when truly examined - states that part of their salvation was owed to them. They contributed to it. Even if it was a mere 1% out of 99%, they were still responsible for that 1%, without which God would have failed. They were able to contribute 1% by their own accord, making themselves better and, in some respects, far more religious than those who rejected God and did not fulfill that 1%. My position, on the other hand, states that God's contribution was 100% His doing. I offered nothing to the table except my own sin, for which God had to suffer, atone for, and then absolve by grace through faith, bringing me to repentance. There is no room for me to be prideful.
Some might say, "But can't you be prideful that God chose you over someone else?" I respond by repeating what I mentioned earlier: that Christ had to die for me in the first place, to atone for my sins, shames me from any possible pride. With the idea of election comes the responsibility of recognizing that your atonement was paid for at a price (cf. 1 Cor 7:23). I am no more prideful that God granted me faith, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice, than I am prideful that I love today in freedom because an American soldier in a foreign land died on my account. My salvation was paid for with the atoning blood of Christ, and there is no pride that can be taken from that.
There is only one thing I am prideful one, but it is not pride of my own, but pride I throw upon God, the one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and gave Himself so that my betrothed and I can be among His flock. All glory that could possibly go to me I redirect to the Lord, and all who desire salvation I point towards Him. God bless.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Can a statement of faith be false?
A while ago, I got into a conversation with a gentleman over what constituted a true believer. His position, as he explained it, was that there was no such thing as a false statement of faith, as those who proclaim Christ as their Lord and say they believe in him will be saved. His opinion appeared to be that there was no such thing as a "false Christian." Is this the case in scripture?
Let's first review the words of the apostle John:
John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).
Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.
Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:
Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.
In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.
These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.
In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).
On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).
Let's first review the words of the apostle John:
I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. [3 John 1:9-11]The apostle John, writing to a spiritual son known as Gaius, makes mention of a man named Diotrephes. Little is known of this person, other than what is mentioned here. Diotrephes' faults are many: he seeks personal power; he denies the authority of the apostles (v. 9); he refuses to welcome traveling missionaries who need a place to stay; he hinders those who desire to help the missionaries, and even excommunicates them if they do so (v. 10).
John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).
Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.
Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. [Jude 1:17-21]Jude has spent much of his epistle writing against the false teachers and heretics who were invading the churches. He now reminds them that the apostles had warned them about this before (v. 17), going on to give a near direct quote of 2 Peter 3:3. It is interesting to note that Peter, in his original epistle, had made mention of the prophets and Christ, and Jude now makes reference to the apostles. It is interesting to note that this shows two things: 1) the early church understood what God was doing with the writings of the apostles; 2) the writings of the apostles were seen with the same authority as the prophets and Christ, and quoted as such...but this is all getting off topic.
Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.
In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.
These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.
In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).
On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).
Friday, March 23, 2012
Random Meditations on the Trinity
The following is just a collection of meditations on the Trinity that I've had for most of the week, especially after some interesting conversations.
Do you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?
This is a rather tricky question that must be first rightly phrased before it can be rightly answered. Emergents, liberals and other false teachers often attack orthodoxy by accusing Christians of teaching that you need to hold a specific set of beliefs in order to be truly saved. We recognize, however, that it is not the mere mental assent towards a deity is synonymous with salvation, for the Lord speaks of those who will call him "Lord! Lord!" on the day of judgment and yet be rejected (Matt 7:21-23), and the apostle James likewise writes: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (Jam 2:19) To say that a mere belief or adherence to a certain type of teaching will grant one salvation is at best easy believism and at worst cultism. Therefore, it is not merely an empty belief or understanding in the Trinity which gives a person salvation.
With this realized, let's transition to the more appropriate understanding of the relationship between belief and salvation. Faith, in regards to its salvific purpose, is dependent not upon the person who professes it, but upon the God who enables that person to confess it. Our blessed Lord spoke, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and the apostle Paul wrote (in an often misquoted passage), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phi 2:12-13). God enables a person to believe, and through that faith in Christ they are saved. B.B. Warfield put it perfectly when he wrote, discussing the topic of sola fide, that it is not faith in Christ which saves, but Christ who saves through faith.
Now let us turn this understanding towards our question of the Trinity and salvation. We know that mere assent to the belief in the Trinity saves no one - however, we also know that it is God's doing in the work of transforming a man's heart to believe fully in Him. If, therefore, someone denies the Trinity, then their very status of salvation is in question. Why is this? If God quickens a person, common sense begs us to understand that He quickens a person to believe towards Him and no other entity, for all other religions are the worship of demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). If we recognize that God quickens a person, and we also recognize that God would quicken a person towards Him and no other entity, then common sense will now beg us to recognize that a person quickened by God to worship Him as He is in His very state of being and in no other way. That is, a person quickened towards God will not burn incense to Hindu gods, or pray towards Mecca in allegiance to Allah and the teachings of his so-called prophet Mohammad. A person quickened towards God will recognize who God is and what His "divine make up" is. I might compare this to an orphan who meets his natural mother and father and finds out their identity; he will not give respect owed to parents to the first random person on the street, but to those whom he has discovered are his true parents.
Therefore, recognizing that if it is God who quickens a person, and that person should now submit to God alone, and that person must submit to God with an understanding of what, and not just who, God is, then a person who denies the Trinity denies what God is, and how His state of being exists, and therefore must have their salvation questioned. That is, a person who claims to be called of God and yet worships another god who is not Trinitarian in nature cannot truly have been saved, for he is directing his worship towards someone other than the true God of scripture.
Do we need to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible in order for it to be true?
A common attack by some against the Trinity is the fact that either the exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned, or that no New Testament writer ever spends time elaborating upon the Trinity in detail. Is this a fair argument? On the other hand, this argument forgets two main points:
1) This is reading backwards into history. That no one used the word "Trinity" in the New Testament is because the word came at least a century or two later, long after the time of the apostolic church and her writers. Furthermore, the word was not created to invent a doctrine, but to identify it. Note very carefully: I am not arguing for a kind of "progressive revelation" akin to the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity (rather, God's Trinitarian Being) was always present even though the term itself had not been conceived. The point we are trying to make is that we should not expect any one to use terms and phrases that did not exist at their time.
A historical example: Pliny the Younger, describing the explosion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, did not use any scientific terms, and yet his description of the explosions are so great that vulcanologists, reading it more than a millennium later, were able to identify exactly what he was describing (in fact, he described it so well they named the type of eruption after him). That Pliny did not know what to call the type of eruption does not suggest his description of it was invalid, nor that the 79 AD eruption didn't happen at all. It would be absurd to read backwards into history and demand Pliny use terminology and phrases that did not exist until long after his death.
2) The absence of a term does not imply that the definition cannot be discovered or seen. To explain this point, I often use an example from the movie The Battle of Algiers: in the movie, reporters ask the fictional Colonel Matthieu if he is torturing Algerian prisoners, to which Matthieu replies, "The word 'torture' is not written on any of our orders." Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was they were torturing prisoners. That the word "torture" was not written in the orders did not mean that torture was not happening.
The reason the word "Trinity" came into being at a later point in history was not because the doctrine in toto was being created along with the term, but rather to identify and name the doctrine that had already been known, in the same manner that the volcanic eruption was named to identify and name that which Pliny the Younger had seen.
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?
Now that we've established a word does not need to be present in order for its definition or what it describes to be seen, and that a historical label does not need to be forced backward upon a person describing said label, let us ask the basic question: does the Trinity exist in scripture? Or is the Trinity a later teaching not only in word but in definition and understanding? It is common for many people today to say that you can't prove the Trinity with scripture...and yet, this is completely and utterly false. The following are some verses I have personally discovered in my own studies (and not by running to Google, I assure you) regarding an identification of the Trinity and what roles the Trinitarian Persons play. I'll quote them and provide a brief explanation for each.
A person who denies this teaches the Trinity must therefore come to either one of two conclusions: Tritheism (three gods), which would contradict the monotheism of the rest of scripture; Modalism (three titles for the same god), which can be easily contradicted by other scriptures in which these persons are spoken of as distinct individuals (cf. Acts 2:26).
This is just a sampling of verses wherein the Persons of the Trinity are identified, most of which also go into discussion regarding the roles of those Persons. Again, the idea that the Trinity cannot be taught or seen in scripture is simply untrue.
Should we be concerned if no one previous to the New Testament writers believed in the Trinity?
Did Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and other Old Testament personalities believe in the Trinity? Of course, men like David never wrote on the Trinity, and it's probably safe to assume that Abraham and Moses were not in full knowledge of God's true design of Being during their lifetime. Is this enough to dismiss the Trinity, however?
Obviously, we recognize that those in the Old Testament and New Testament alike worshiped the same God, and that the God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. Trinitarianism is still monotheism, and the Trinitarian nature of God does not contradict or usurp the monotheistic teachings of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God whom Abraham prayed to and the God whom Paul prayed to are one and the same God. In this regard, there is no conflict.
What we must consider, however, is that through the Old Testament there was a progression of revelation towards the Messiah and the atonement of the Messiah's people. We see this throughout the Old Testament itself. Abraham did not know anything of the Temple or its sacrifices, though Ezekiel and Jeremiah certainly did. Deborah knew of the sacrifices for atonement, but nothing of the Temple, though John the Baptist and the apostles certainly knew of both. All that God revealed, bit by bit, pointed towards Christ. They were a "shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1) until "the fullness of time" wherein God would send His Son (Gal 4:4).
Part of this revelation would be the full understanding of God's Being as being Trinitarian in function. For certain there are moments wherein the existence of coequal Persons within the Trinity are hinted at, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, where it is said that "the LORD rained...sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24), or the psalm of David where he writes "the LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...'" (Psa 110:1). However, the truest revelation of God's Trinitarian Being would be in the time New Testament period, with the incarnation of the Son and the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the church. Everything from Genesis to Revelation is about the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of God's glory in His death and resurrection.
Therefore, it should not surprise us that no one previous to the New Testament spoke on the Trinity any more than it should surprise us that Abraham knew nothing of the Temple and its sacrifices. This does not, however, denote that the Trinity is created. God revealed forward, and the apex of this revelation was in the Trinitarian revelation of the New Testament, where the Father would send the Son to willingly give His life in the cross that, with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we may have forgiveness of sins and become fellow heirs with the Son to the inheritance of the Father.
Do you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?
This is a rather tricky question that must be first rightly phrased before it can be rightly answered. Emergents, liberals and other false teachers often attack orthodoxy by accusing Christians of teaching that you need to hold a specific set of beliefs in order to be truly saved. We recognize, however, that it is not the mere mental assent towards a deity is synonymous with salvation, for the Lord speaks of those who will call him "Lord! Lord!" on the day of judgment and yet be rejected (Matt 7:21-23), and the apostle James likewise writes: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (Jam 2:19) To say that a mere belief or adherence to a certain type of teaching will grant one salvation is at best easy believism and at worst cultism. Therefore, it is not merely an empty belief or understanding in the Trinity which gives a person salvation.
With this realized, let's transition to the more appropriate understanding of the relationship between belief and salvation. Faith, in regards to its salvific purpose, is dependent not upon the person who professes it, but upon the God who enables that person to confess it. Our blessed Lord spoke, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and the apostle Paul wrote (in an often misquoted passage), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phi 2:12-13). God enables a person to believe, and through that faith in Christ they are saved. B.B. Warfield put it perfectly when he wrote, discussing the topic of sola fide, that it is not faith in Christ which saves, but Christ who saves through faith.
Now let us turn this understanding towards our question of the Trinity and salvation. We know that mere assent to the belief in the Trinity saves no one - however, we also know that it is God's doing in the work of transforming a man's heart to believe fully in Him. If, therefore, someone denies the Trinity, then their very status of salvation is in question. Why is this? If God quickens a person, common sense begs us to understand that He quickens a person to believe towards Him and no other entity, for all other religions are the worship of demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). If we recognize that God quickens a person, and we also recognize that God would quicken a person towards Him and no other entity, then common sense will now beg us to recognize that a person quickened by God to worship Him as He is in His very state of being and in no other way. That is, a person quickened towards God will not burn incense to Hindu gods, or pray towards Mecca in allegiance to Allah and the teachings of his so-called prophet Mohammad. A person quickened towards God will recognize who God is and what His "divine make up" is. I might compare this to an orphan who meets his natural mother and father and finds out their identity; he will not give respect owed to parents to the first random person on the street, but to those whom he has discovered are his true parents.
Therefore, recognizing that if it is God who quickens a person, and that person should now submit to God alone, and that person must submit to God with an understanding of what, and not just who, God is, then a person who denies the Trinity denies what God is, and how His state of being exists, and therefore must have their salvation questioned. That is, a person who claims to be called of God and yet worships another god who is not Trinitarian in nature cannot truly have been saved, for he is directing his worship towards someone other than the true God of scripture.
Do we need to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible in order for it to be true?
A common attack by some against the Trinity is the fact that either the exact word "Trinity" is not mentioned, or that no New Testament writer ever spends time elaborating upon the Trinity in detail. Is this a fair argument? On the other hand, this argument forgets two main points:
1) This is reading backwards into history. That no one used the word "Trinity" in the New Testament is because the word came at least a century or two later, long after the time of the apostolic church and her writers. Furthermore, the word was not created to invent a doctrine, but to identify it. Note very carefully: I am not arguing for a kind of "progressive revelation" akin to the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity (rather, God's Trinitarian Being) was always present even though the term itself had not been conceived. The point we are trying to make is that we should not expect any one to use terms and phrases that did not exist at their time.
A historical example: Pliny the Younger, describing the explosion of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, did not use any scientific terms, and yet his description of the explosions are so great that vulcanologists, reading it more than a millennium later, were able to identify exactly what he was describing (in fact, he described it so well they named the type of eruption after him). That Pliny did not know what to call the type of eruption does not suggest his description of it was invalid, nor that the 79 AD eruption didn't happen at all. It would be absurd to read backwards into history and demand Pliny use terminology and phrases that did not exist until long after his death.
2) The absence of a term does not imply that the definition cannot be discovered or seen. To explain this point, I often use an example from the movie The Battle of Algiers: in the movie, reporters ask the fictional Colonel Matthieu if he is torturing Algerian prisoners, to which Matthieu replies, "The word 'torture' is not written on any of our orders." Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was they were torturing prisoners. That the word "torture" was not written in the orders did not mean that torture was not happening.
The reason the word "Trinity" came into being at a later point in history was not because the doctrine in toto was being created along with the term, but rather to identify and name the doctrine that had already been known, in the same manner that the volcanic eruption was named to identify and name that which Pliny the Younger had seen.
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?
Now that we've established a word does not need to be present in order for its definition or what it describes to be seen, and that a historical label does not need to be forced backward upon a person describing said label, let us ask the basic question: does the Trinity exist in scripture? Or is the Trinity a later teaching not only in word but in definition and understanding? It is common for many people today to say that you can't prove the Trinity with scripture...and yet, this is completely and utterly false. The following are some verses I have personally discovered in my own studies (and not by running to Google, I assure you) regarding an identification of the Trinity and what roles the Trinitarian Persons play. I'll quote them and provide a brief explanation for each.
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [Matthew 3:16-17]Here we see all three Persons of the Trinity make an appearance: the Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. There is a level of individuality seen in all of them: the Holy Spirit takes on the form of a dove, the Son is there in the flesh, and the Father is speaking as an eyewitness to the Sonship of Christ.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [Matthew 28:19]Here, in the midst of the Great Commission, we have the command for Trinitarian baptism. Baptism, in Judaism, was always in the name of God, and indeed one would imagine that baptism should be in no other name except that of God. Yet here Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (each Person, in the original Greek, has the definite article preceding their name, emphasizing the distinction).
A person who denies this teaches the Trinity must therefore come to either one of two conclusions: Tritheism (three gods), which would contradict the monotheism of the rest of scripture; Modalism (three titles for the same god), which can be easily contradicted by other scriptures in which these persons are spoken of as distinct individuals (cf. Acts 2:26).
"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, [the Son] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." [Acts 2:33]Here the apostle Peter, speaking to the Jews at Pentecost, explains the goings on and the source of all the wonders happening. After a lengthy discussion on the Person of Christ, Peter states that the Son has been exalted at the right hand of God, the Father, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the Son has bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the believers. Here we have an example of the "monarchical procession" of the Trinity that ancient theologians often wrote on. That is, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son upon believers. This signifies the various roles that the Trinity played at Pentecost, as well as how the Persons relate to one another: the Father bestows, the Son receives and sends, and the Holy Spirit is sent out.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [Romans 8:3-4]Here, during Paul's great exposition on salvation, the apostle identifies the actions of the Trinitarian Person within said salvation: God the Father sent God the Son in the likeness of flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to God the Holy Spirit, who is our guide in this.
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]Continuing his exposition on salvation, Paul states that the Holy Spirit bears witness (which is a personal action, suggesting the Holy Spirit is a Person and not a mere impersonal force) with our own spirit that we are children of God. If this is the case, Paul says, then we are heirs of God the Father, as we are fellow heirs with Christ, the Son. Thus all three Persons within the Trinity act to verify our salvation: the Holy Spirit is our witness that we are heirs with the Son, and as we are heirs with the Son, we are heirs to the Father.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. [1 Corinthians 12:4-6]The apostle Paul begins a discussion on the unity of believers within the church despite the numerous gifts and talents. At the very beginning, Paul makes a sign of unity by turning to the Trinity itself: there are variety of gifts, but the same Spirit (who bestows those gifts); there are a variety of service, but the same Lord (who grants the ability to serve); there are a variety of activities, but the same God (that is, the Father, and who empowers those activities in believers). The roles of the Persons within the Trinity are made distinct from one another, and yet they are likewise put on the same level with one another, and unity is maintained.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [2 Corinthians 13:14]At the conclusion of his epistle, the apostle Paul writes out a blessing to the Corinthians by naming all three Trinitarian Persons. He wishes for the Corinthian church: 1) grace from the Son; 2) love from the Father; 3) fellowship from the Holy Spirit. As with the first epistle, all three Persons are mentioned in the same train of thought.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. [Ephesians 1:13-14]Similar to Romans 8:16-17, the apostle Paul goes into brief detail regarding the roles of the Trinitarian Persons within a believer's salvation. In Christ, the Son, believers were sealed with the promise of the Holy Spirit, who serves as our guarantee of the inheritance of the Father.
For through [the Son] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [Ephesians 2:18]In a very blunt verse, Paul states that in the Son we have access to the Father by the Holy Spirit. The Son, of course, is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), and it is in the Holy Spirit that Christians have fellowship with one another (2 Cor 13:14).
How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. [Hebrews 2:3-4]Writing to Jewish Christians, the writer of Hebrews (whether the reader believes it was Paul or not) asks how one can neglect so great a salvation, and then discusses how this salvation was revealed to the Jews. First, it was declared by the Lord - that is, the Son - through the ministry of Christ, which was heard by the apostles and other eyewitnesses. Second, the witness of the Father's favor in the Son was seen through the signs, wonders and miracles. Third, it was seen by the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles and early Christians as a sign to the Jews of that time. In just two verses, the writer explains how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit worked together in the exposition of salvation to early believers.
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. [Hebrews 9:14]In the great discussion of our salvation by Christ's atonement, the same writer of Hebrews goes into a discussion on how all three Persons work in this salvation. That is, the Son (Christ), offered Himself, through the Holy Spirit, without blemish to God the Father, in order that believers may be purified and made holy to serve God.
This is just a sampling of verses wherein the Persons of the Trinity are identified, most of which also go into discussion regarding the roles of those Persons. Again, the idea that the Trinity cannot be taught or seen in scripture is simply untrue.
Should we be concerned if no one previous to the New Testament writers believed in the Trinity?
Did Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah and other Old Testament personalities believe in the Trinity? Of course, men like David never wrote on the Trinity, and it's probably safe to assume that Abraham and Moses were not in full knowledge of God's true design of Being during their lifetime. Is this enough to dismiss the Trinity, however?
Obviously, we recognize that those in the Old Testament and New Testament alike worshiped the same God, and that the God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. Trinitarianism is still monotheism, and the Trinitarian nature of God does not contradict or usurp the monotheistic teachings of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God whom Abraham prayed to and the God whom Paul prayed to are one and the same God. In this regard, there is no conflict.
What we must consider, however, is that through the Old Testament there was a progression of revelation towards the Messiah and the atonement of the Messiah's people. We see this throughout the Old Testament itself. Abraham did not know anything of the Temple or its sacrifices, though Ezekiel and Jeremiah certainly did. Deborah knew of the sacrifices for atonement, but nothing of the Temple, though John the Baptist and the apostles certainly knew of both. All that God revealed, bit by bit, pointed towards Christ. They were a "shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1) until "the fullness of time" wherein God would send His Son (Gal 4:4).
Part of this revelation would be the full understanding of God's Being as being Trinitarian in function. For certain there are moments wherein the existence of coequal Persons within the Trinity are hinted at, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, where it is said that "the LORD rained...sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven" (Gen 19:24), or the psalm of David where he writes "the LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...'" (Psa 110:1). However, the truest revelation of God's Trinitarian Being would be in the time New Testament period, with the incarnation of the Son and the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the church. Everything from Genesis to Revelation is about the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of God's glory in His death and resurrection.
Therefore, it should not surprise us that no one previous to the New Testament spoke on the Trinity any more than it should surprise us that Abraham knew nothing of the Temple and its sacrifices. This does not, however, denote that the Trinity is created. God revealed forward, and the apex of this revelation was in the Trinitarian revelation of the New Testament, where the Father would send the Son to willingly give His life in the cross that, with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we may have forgiveness of sins and become fellow heirs with the Son to the inheritance of the Father.
Friday, February 18, 2011
"The Nature of the Water"
The following is from the Jonathan Edwards work Religious Affections.
As from true divine love flow all Christian affections, so from a counterfeit love in like manner naturally flow other false affections. In both cases, love is the fountain, and the other affections are the streams. The various faculties, principles, and affections of the human nature, are as it were many channels from one fountain: if there be sweet water in the fountain, sweet water will from thence flow out into those various channels; but if the water in the fountain be poisonous, then poisonous streams will also flow out into all those channels. So that the channels and streams will be alike, corresponding one with another; but the great difference will lie in the nature of the water. Or, man's nature may be compared to a tree, with many branches, coming from one root: if the sap in the root be good, there will also be good sap distributed throughout the branches, and the fruit that is brought forth will be good and wholesome; but if the sap in the root and stock be poisonous, so it will be in many branches (as in the other case), and the fruit will be deadly. The tree in both cases may be alike; there may be an exact resemblance in shape; but the difference is found only in eating the fruit. It is thus (in some measure at least) oftentimes between saints and hypocrites. There is sometimes a very great similitude between true and false experiences, in their appearance, and in what is expressed and related by the subjects of them: and the difference between them is much like the difference between the dreams of Pharaoh's chief butler and baker; they seemed to be much alike, insomuch that when Joseph interpreted the chief butler's dream, that he should be delivered from his imprisonment, and restored to the king's favor, and his honorable office in the palace, the chief baker had raised hopes and expectations, and told his dream also; but he was woefully disappointed; and though his dream was so much like the happy and well boding dream of his companion, yet it was quite contrary in its issue.
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Faith of the President
Recently I had heard that President Barack Obama made a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast regarding his personal faith. While searching online for the transcript of the speech, I came across an article which said the following:
Now, I am not going to debate whether or not the president is a Muslim, but what I do want to review is whether or not he has truly accepted Christ. The author of the previously quoted article stated that the president must be Christian, as he attended Trinity United Church of Christ and had an ongoing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of course, herein lies a problem: simply attending a building with the word "church" in the title, or simply known someone in the position of "pastor," does not make you a Christian.
Trinity United Church of Christ is itself a member of the wider United Church of Christ. This church ordains openly gay pastors and supports homosexual marriage (they even boast about it on their website), all of which directly contradicts scriptural teachings. Christ Himself identified marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5) and homosexual activity is condemned in various parts of scripture (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The United Church of Christ likewise said in an interfaith document (source) that Christians and Muslims share "worship of the same God," as well as "a common tradition of revelation through God's prophets as told in sacred scripture," both of which are clearly and undeniably false (I touched on the subject in greater detail here). All in all, the United Church of Christ does not seem to adhere to the words of scripture or the commands of God - in fact, it seems to abandon both for the name of being relative and appealing to the world rather than to the Lord. It therefore cannot be considered an orthodox Christian church.
As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his language and demeanor were seen ad nauseum during the 2008 elections, so I don't think I need to talk about that too much. There are passages of scripture which speak of the error in using the Lord's name alongside profane language (James 3:10), as well as passages which identify the deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) in contrast to the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the former list being more in line with what Wright preaches behind the pulpit. Whatever is driving Mr. Wright to preach, it is not the Spirit of God, and therefore one cannot say that someone is a Christian because they are a follower of Wright.
Of course, most of this is in the president's past, and it's possible for man to have changed. In regards to the president's testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast, as I read I noticed that there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, the president declares that shortly after college: "I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior." He also states: "My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years." Near the end he even says:
One comment that perhaps stood out for me the most:
At the risk of sounding judgmental, this does not sound like the president learned anything from his fellowship with Jeremiah Wright. The apostle John warned us:
Despite this, the speech might overall sound innocent to the average person. Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something under the surface. It is not that I especially dislike Barack Obama personally, but I recognize that politicians, by and large, often give us much rhetoric and little substance. I couldn't help but think: isn't this president calling himself "Christian" the same president who is supporting homosexual activity and abortion? Sometimes, there is something deeper to a person's theology that is more caught than taught.
What I found was that, in an earlier interview, Obama had downplayed his faith...and, in essence taught universalism:
In the same interview, when asked if he believed that those who do not accept Christ will go to hell, Obama replied:
When asked if he believed in heaven, Obama replied:
This brings us to the most important part. Obama was then asked if he believed in sin, and he said yes. Remember that earlier I had mentioned the complete lack of mention in sin within the president's testimony. What is Obama's definition of sin?
I am, again and again, always reminded of King David who lusted after a married woman and had her husband killed off so that he could marry her. Yet when David repented, what did he say? That he was untrue to his values? No, he said: "Against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight..." (Psalm 51:4). A sin is a transgression against God and His commands, not our personal values and opinions. Sinning is not being untrue to ourselves, but our Lord God. To hold our personal values higher than God's values (or to make the two equal) is to put ourselves higher or equal with God.
When asked what happens if you sin, Obama replied:
When asked when it is that he feels "the most aligned spiritually," Obama replied:
I know that some reading this might immediately label me a Tea Partier, a Republican, a right-wing nut, etc. Personally, I do not care. Those who know me personally know that I'm fairly apathetic in regards to political parties and personalities, and that I have just as much to say about those on the right as those on the left. However, in times like these, when public figures begin to put on the hat of religion - especially when they are claiming to be followers of Christ - we have to be discerning. It is too common that, when someone makes a proclamation of faith, that those on both sides of the spectrum declare, "Hurrah, he's one of us!" or "That's so sweet, I appreciate that!" We are commanded to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21), and if someone makes a claim to have come to know Christ they should bear some sign that they have done so. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness," the apostle John wrote, "we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6).
It is so common these days to treat our faith the same way we treat our political ideologies, and this is where many stumble. They assume that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion, and that to be saved is to live by their personal values. That, however, is not the case - for everyone, by their own personal opinion, is justified. As the apostle Paul wrote: "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31). Yet Christ is "judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim 4:1), and "God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). If we have saving faith in Christ as the judge of our souls and the master of our being, then we "have died" and our life "is hidden with Christ in God," and "when Christ, who is our life, is revealed," then we will also "be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4).
We are not justified by ourselves; we are justified as a gift from God through faith in Christ. I pray that all men - from the president to the janitor - have a chance to seriously ponder this, and, by God's will, be saved. The last word shall go to the apostle Paul:
It’s been more than two years since President Barack Obama took office and yet there are widespread misconceptions about him. Chief among these: Despite his clear identification as a Christian (as evidenced by his membership to Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and his tumultuous relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright), many believe that our president is a Muslim. [source; emphasis in original]A transcript of the entire speech itself can be found here, from CNN's website.
Now, I am not going to debate whether or not the president is a Muslim, but what I do want to review is whether or not he has truly accepted Christ. The author of the previously quoted article stated that the president must be Christian, as he attended Trinity United Church of Christ and had an ongoing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of course, herein lies a problem: simply attending a building with the word "church" in the title, or simply known someone in the position of "pastor," does not make you a Christian.
Trinity United Church of Christ is itself a member of the wider United Church of Christ. This church ordains openly gay pastors and supports homosexual marriage (they even boast about it on their website), all of which directly contradicts scriptural teachings. Christ Himself identified marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5) and homosexual activity is condemned in various parts of scripture (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The United Church of Christ likewise said in an interfaith document (source) that Christians and Muslims share "worship of the same God," as well as "a common tradition of revelation through God's prophets as told in sacred scripture," both of which are clearly and undeniably false (I touched on the subject in greater detail here). All in all, the United Church of Christ does not seem to adhere to the words of scripture or the commands of God - in fact, it seems to abandon both for the name of being relative and appealing to the world rather than to the Lord. It therefore cannot be considered an orthodox Christian church.
As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his language and demeanor were seen ad nauseum during the 2008 elections, so I don't think I need to talk about that too much. There are passages of scripture which speak of the error in using the Lord's name alongside profane language (James 3:10), as well as passages which identify the deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) in contrast to the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the former list being more in line with what Wright preaches behind the pulpit. Whatever is driving Mr. Wright to preach, it is not the Spirit of God, and therefore one cannot say that someone is a Christian because they are a follower of Wright.
Of course, most of this is in the president's past, and it's possible for man to have changed. In regards to the president's testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast, as I read I noticed that there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, the president declares that shortly after college: "I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior." He also states: "My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years." Near the end he even says:
When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people. And when I go to bed at night I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.The phrase "I ask Him to forgive me my sins" interested me, and one thing I couldn't help but notice overall in the speech is that sin seemed to play a relaxed part. Yes, the president talked of his complete reliance upon God and spoke of how his faith is important, all of which are certainly vital. Yet what merit is there of a savior if we do not emphasize the very thing from which we needed saving? The truth is that the president's definition of "sin" needs to be analyzed, and later on in this post we will find out just what it is.
One comment that perhaps stood out for me the most:
Fortunately, I'm not alone in my prayers. Pastor friends like Joel Hunter and T.D. Jakes come over to the Oval Office every once in a while to pray with me and pray for the nation. [emphasis mine]T.D. Jakes? Of the Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, Trinity Broadcasting Network T.D. Jakes? The T.D. Jakes who associates with other Word of Faith preachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White and Creflo Dollar? You mean the heretical T.D. Jakes? He's a "pastor friend" of the president that comes over to pray with him "every once in a while"?
At the risk of sounding judgmental, this does not sound like the president learned anything from his fellowship with Jeremiah Wright. The apostle John warned us:
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. [2 John 1:9-11; NASB]The president not only allows a false teacher into his house, and not only gives him a greeting, but prays with him. He engages in spiritual fellowship with a false teacher, something scripture warns us not to do. We are even told that if we do so, we are considered equals with the person's evil deeds.
Despite this, the speech might overall sound innocent to the average person. Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something under the surface. It is not that I especially dislike Barack Obama personally, but I recognize that politicians, by and large, often give us much rhetoric and little substance. I couldn't help but think: isn't this president calling himself "Christian" the same president who is supporting homosexual activity and abortion? Sometimes, there is something deeper to a person's theology that is more caught than taught.
What I found was that, in an earlier interview, Obama had downplayed his faith...and, in essence taught universalism:
I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. [source]Many paths to the same place? Is that why Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)? That those who deny Him before men will be denied before the Father (Matt 10:33)? The apostle Peter outlined: "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Many paths to the same place? Scripture clearly teaches us otherwise!
In the same interview, when asked if he believed that those who do not accept Christ will go to hell, Obama replied:
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell."Not part of my religious makeup"...since when do our personal beliefs trump the teachings of scripture? "My God"? One can only ask the blunt question, "Just who is your God, Mr. Obama?" If it is not the God of scripture, then it is not the one true God, and we are clearly instructed that "you shall not follow other gods" (Deut 6:14). This is idolatry - perhaps idolatry without statues and incense, but idolatry nonetheless, for it is such idolatry in which we worship a god of our own mind.
I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That's just not part of my religious makeup. [ibid]
When asked if he believed in heaven, Obama replied:
What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. [ibid]One can only imagine how the president intends to live his life as well as he can. For we are told "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). We are also told "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20) and "no one is justified by the Law before God" (Gal 3:11). This idea of "I do this, then I'll be rewarded" is a very works-based minded opinion of heaven and eternal reward, something very foreign from the gospel of scripture. Where can one fit room for grace and Christ if I just need to "live my life as well as I can"?
This brings us to the most important part. Obama was then asked if he believed in sin, and he said yes. Remember that earlier I had mentioned the complete lack of mention in sin within the president's testimony. What is Obama's definition of sin?
Being out of alignment with my values. [ibid]My head spun at this comment. Sin is "being out of alignment with my values"? Is it our values that we are told to live up to? Is this what sin is? The people of the old covenant had been told: "You should diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you" (Deut 6:17). The Psalmist wrote to God: "How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word" (Psalm 119:9), and likewise, "Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11). We are sinning when we act against God's word; we are not sinning when we are in accordance with God's word.
I am, again and again, always reminded of King David who lusted after a married woman and had her husband killed off so that he could marry her. Yet when David repented, what did he say? That he was untrue to his values? No, he said: "Against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight..." (Psalm 51:4). A sin is a transgression against God and His commands, not our personal values and opinions. Sinning is not being untrue to ourselves, but our Lord God. To hold our personal values higher than God's values (or to make the two equal) is to put ourselves higher or equal with God.
When asked what happens if you sin, Obama replied:
I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment. [ibid]This sounds remarkably like the Emergent Church crowd, who believe that "hell" and "heaven" refer to how we make the earth in the here and now - in other words, if we help society we make it (figuratively) heaven, if we don't help society we make it (figuratively) hell. Note again the emphasis on ourselves: hell only comes about if we're not true to ourselves - again, is that the emphasis found in scripture?
When asked when it is that he feels "the most aligned spiritually," Obama replied:
I think I already described it. It's when I'm being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I'm recognizing them and exchanging a good word. [ibid; emphasis mine]The closest he feels most aligned spiritually is when he's being true to himself? And this involves things he personally does? One can't help but notice that in the president's explanation of his spirituality, there is a constant direction towards himself. In a testimony before faith leaders there is a half-hearted attempt to show his reliance on God, but in a previous interview Obama makes it clear that his spirituality is much more vague and is entirely man-centered, with sprinklings of Christian terminology mixed in. In responding to critics of his faith, Obama made the remark, "Folks haven't been reading their bibles" (source). Unfortunately, I think it's clear that the only person who hasn't seriously read their bible is Mr. Obama himself.
I know that some reading this might immediately label me a Tea Partier, a Republican, a right-wing nut, etc. Personally, I do not care. Those who know me personally know that I'm fairly apathetic in regards to political parties and personalities, and that I have just as much to say about those on the right as those on the left. However, in times like these, when public figures begin to put on the hat of religion - especially when they are claiming to be followers of Christ - we have to be discerning. It is too common that, when someone makes a proclamation of faith, that those on both sides of the spectrum declare, "Hurrah, he's one of us!" or "That's so sweet, I appreciate that!" We are commanded to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21), and if someone makes a claim to have come to know Christ they should bear some sign that they have done so. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness," the apostle John wrote, "we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6).
It is so common these days to treat our faith the same way we treat our political ideologies, and this is where many stumble. They assume that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion, and that to be saved is to live by their personal values. That, however, is not the case - for everyone, by their own personal opinion, is justified. As the apostle Paul wrote: "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31). Yet Christ is "judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim 4:1), and "God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). If we have saving faith in Christ as the judge of our souls and the master of our being, then we "have died" and our life "is hidden with Christ in God," and "when Christ, who is our life, is revealed," then we will also "be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4).
We are not justified by ourselves; we are justified as a gift from God through faith in Christ. I pray that all men - from the president to the janitor - have a chance to seriously ponder this, and, by God's will, be saved. The last word shall go to the apostle Paul:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe... [Rom 3:21-22]
Saturday, April 10, 2010
"I will constrain no man by force..."
The following is from the second of Martin Luther's Invocavit sermons.
Now if I should rush in and abolish it [the Latin mass] by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know where they stand, whether it is right or wrong, and they would say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints, and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords and pastors, abandon the Mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this. But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law. He who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain outside. In the latter case the word would sink into the heart and do its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the Mass; tomorrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with His word than if you and I were to merge all our power into one heap. So when you have won the heart, you have won the man - and thus the thing must finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of all are agreed and united, abolish it. But if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment - leave it in God's hands, I beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not that I would again set up the Mass; I let it lie in God's name. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you will not be able to carry out your plans. And if you should carry them out with such general laws, then I will recant everything that I have written and preached and I will not support you. This I am telling you now. What harm can it do you? You still have your faith in God, pure and strong so that this thing cannot hurt you.
Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens (Acts 17), a mighty city, he found in the temple many ancient altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but he did not kick down a single one of them with his foot. Rather he stood up in the middle of the market place and said they were nothing but idolatrous things and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook them of their own accord, and in consequence the thing fell of itself. Likewise, if I had seen them holding Mass, I would have preached to them and admonished them. Had they heeded my admonition, I would have won them; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the word to act and prayed for them. For the word created heaven and earth and all things [Psalm 33:6]; the word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.
In short, I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philipp and Amsdorf, the word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany; indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool's play. I did nothing; I let the word do its work. What do you suppose is Satan's thought when one tries to do the thing by kicking up a row? He sits back in hell and thinks: Oh, what a fine game the poor fools are up to now! But when we spread the word alone and let it alone do the work, that distresses him. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and when the hearts are captured the work will fall of itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)