The Gospel Is Not A Doctrine of the Tongue

The Swiss theologian John Calvin is much maligned by his critics. Though his name has become a reproachful byword in some circles, the simple fact is that very few of Calvin's most vocal critics have bothered to read his writings in any depth. As with any human interpreter, of course, he is a fallible interpreter and should be read with discernment and compared with the scriptures. Whatever you may think about his various ideas, one thing is clear: The eager student of the Bible can gain much by perusing his works. His insights are very often compact, piercing, thorough, and sometimes quite witty!

There's a short booklet called "Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life", which is an English translation of a portion of Calvin's Institutes. The excerpt I'm sharing has to do with the insufficiency of external Christianity.

"Let us ask those who possess nothing but church membership, and yet want to be called Christians, how they can glory in the sacred name of Christ? For no one has any communion with Christ but he who has received the true knowledge of him from the word of the gospel. The apostle denies that anyone actually knows Christ who has not learned to put off the old man, corrupt with deceitful lusts, and to put on Christ. External knowledge of Christ is found to be only a false and dangerous make-believe, however eloquently and freely lip servants may talk about the gospel. The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life."

Christianity Without The Resurrection Is Useless

You're probably quite familiar with how in I Corinthians 15:17, Apostle Paul shows that the Christian faith would be useless if Christ really didn't rise from the grave.

The Apostles did not mince their words. They brought a strong antithesis to the non-Christian thinking of their day. They didn't take the "safe" route. They staked their claims on a particular event, and laid everything on that one event. And most of them lost their lives because of their uncompromising dedication to the gospel. And in presenting that gospel, they did so even though they were keenly aware that the natural state of the people listening was such that the message would be rejected (even if they had witnessed the resurrection with their own eyes). But they counted on that way that God graciously works in the hearts of the hearers to open their hearts to the truths being proclaimed.

Some modern thinkers who reject the resurrection try to maintain that there still is some usefulness to Christianity even though they are rejecting a central tenant of it. They think it still has some social benefit or is useful for teaching morals. But they are wrong! If the resurrection never happened, then Christianity is useless and all Christians might as well become atheists. There is no benefit to a "resurrection-less" Christianity; it would be worse than worthless. It would be miserable. Apostle Paul essentially said that if we have Christianity without the resurrection, we are of all people most miserable. Without the core of its gospel, Christianity really has nothing to offer.


J. Gresham Machen spoke of this in "What Is Christianity?:

"...if the Christian religion is founded upon historical facts, then there is something in the Christian message which can never possibly change. There is one good thing about facts — they stay put. If a thing really happened, the passage of years can never possibly make it into a thing that did not happen. If the body of Jesus really emerged from the tomb on the first Easter morning, then no possible advance of science can change the fact one whit. The advance of science may conceivably show that the alleged fact was never a fact at all; it may conceivably show that the earliest Christians were wrong when they said that Christ rose from the dead the third day. But to say that that statement of fact was true in the first century, but that because of the advance of science it is no longer true — that is to say what is plainly absurd. The Christian religion is founded squarely upon a message that sets forth facts; if that message is false, then the religion that is founded on it must of course be abandoned; but if it is true, then the Christian Church must still deliver the message faithfully as it did on the morning of the first Easter Day."

A Thought From Francis Schaeffer

"As time goes on, the Lord has brought so many very unique people here and to the classes. Sitting quietly with them, it has been necessary to place the Word of God face to face with the questions that are hurled without restraint from both Western and Eastern mentalities. More and more it causes me to realize that in reality Christianity is the greatest intellectual system the mind of man has ever touched. It really has been a tremendous experience to sit in classes and in discussions with those who would be considered top flight by the best of the world's standards and to watch the Word of God literally have an answer for every question across the board...Yet if this is indeed all there is, eventually all it will prove is that Christianity is indeed the best system the mind of man has ever touched. In short, something more is needed in addition if the system is to be proven to be Truth--that which the universe truly is.

And I am convinced that this something in addition must be a demonstration of the existence of God--His character and His acting in history--is not merely theoretical, but a reality in history; not only from 1500BC till 100AD, but in every generation."

From "Letters of Francis Schaeffer", page 80

A Couple Excerpts from Mother Kirk

Here are a couple of good excerpts from "Mother Kirk" by Douglas Wilson:

Excerpt 1: "We are just disobedient in our worship as they [ancient Baal worshippers] were but are too lazy to even create a false religion. So we just make up something that fits in with the zoning regulations and call it good....We build temples to the gods of commerce, and this is why the modern church looks like a shopping mall, sprawling and flat, plenty of parking, Visa and MasterCard accepted...Just like Alice's restaurant, you can get anything you want. Churches now have weight rooms, they have food courts, they have Christian book stores. In the old days, this last item would not have been a matter of shame, but in the old days, Christian book stores had Christian books in them...

We hustle and sell because we think we need customers. We market the church because we think the gospel is a product. Because we think the gospel is a product, we measure our success by counting the dollars that flow in. If the stream slows down, we do what all enterprising entrepreneurs do--modify the product until it is more to the customers' liking. The customer, as the fellow said, is always right. But Jesus said that you cannot serve God and mammon...Christ cleansed the Temple because the avaricious had made it a den of thieves. We have thought to do them one better and have tried to turn a den of thieves into a temple.."

--

Excerpt 2: "We live in an era which places a high value on the hardness of heart. We can tell this by our love of soft teaching. Of course this is not how we describe it inwardly. In speaking to ourselves, we generally have a most appreciative audience, we have great affection for smooth words, words which go down easily. Jeremiah talked about this 'The have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; where there is no peace" (Jer.6:14)

We like to believe that this love of soft words, words which will trouble neither the mind nor the heart, nor anything in between, is a deep love of tenderness. Such a conviction flatters us, but our love is actually the opposite of tenderness.

If our hearts were a slab of concrete, and we wanted to keep them that way, our desire to have them caressed with a feather duster would exhibit no love of tenderness, but rather the contrary. The one who really wanted a tender heart would be calling for the jackhammer. Hard words, hard teaching, are the jackhammer of God. It takes a great deal to break up our hard hearts, and the God of all mercy is willing to do it. But He always does it according to His Word, and His Word is not as easy on us as we would like. 'Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?' (Jer.23:29).

When Christians call for smooth words, easy word, the result is hard people. When we submit to hard words, we become the tenderhearted of God."

Three Counterfeits

Here are three counterfeits discussed in a leaked memo in the fictional "The Gravedigger File: Papers on The Subversion of the Modern Church" by OS Guinness.

CIVIL RELIGION

"Civil religion is counterfeit in the sense that it is religion shaped by the priorities and demands of the political order Loyalty to Caesar once again overrides loyalty to Christ.

In its American form, civil religion is that somewhat vague but treasured semi-religious semi-political beliefs and values basic to America's understanding of herself. You can witness it at its most elegant in the speeches of any presidential inauguration, or at its more homespun on any Fourth of July. The American Creed is quite different from the Apostle's Creed. The latter is basically theological, the former political; the latter a matter of sacred covenant, the former of social contract; the latter is highly distinct, the former deliberately vague. But the American Creed is no less deeply held. The charge 'un-American' is far more likely to provoke a deep reaction than the charge 'heretical'.

CONSUMER RELIGION

"A second force contributing to consumer religion has been the virtual sanctification of prosperity and success through the American dream. Religion, you remember, has been confined increasingly to the private sphere at the very time when the private sphere has become the sphere of individual gratification and consumption. This special configuration has produced a surge of conspicuous consumption in religious guise.

Notice how a complete set of principles and slogans has been created ("Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve", "Turn scars into stars", and so on). These are designed for plugging into the Apostles' Creed or the American Creed or both. The Good News and the Good Life, the Christian Way and the American Way are serviced under the same franchise."

CLOSED RELIGION

"by which I mean religion shaped by the priorities and demands of the social order... The issue at stake in this case is: What is the source of an individuals meaning and belonging?...This lack gives rise to a simple dynamic which is natural for us to harness: When social chaos, then religious cults..Freedom! was the cry of the sixties. Freedom from tradition, custom, routine, morals, authority and all that inhibited the spontaneous expression of the autonomous individual...it created a vacuum which in turn built up a consuming hunger for the very things that had been discarded.

Predictably, there was a rebound--from openness to closure, from virtual anarchy to authoritarianism...The liberated generation suddenly woke up and found itself the fatherless generation; and in the ensuing scramble for authority, community, family, and home, it showed itself decidedly unparticular...This is the context of the '70s -style surge of closed religion which reached its climax in Jonestown...

You may have noticed the sudden somersaults in some of the fringe charismatic groups, for example. One moment they were all for freedom (rejecting one-man ministry, impatient with hide-bound liturgies and traditions, overturning male domination). Then presto, and a thousand mini-popes were strutting around telling their followers what to believe, how to believe, whom to marry, with whom not to associate.

Such swings toward micro-totalitarianism were dressed up properly, of course, sailing under the flags of respectable notions such as authority, discipleship, and accountability. But unquestionably they were closed religion, the Christian faith sucked into the black hole of today's vacuum of meaning and belonging."

Fascination with the Miraculous/Moralistic

In his article, "Fascinations that Lead Away From the Cross..", Michael Horton discusses three things that he sees as potentially distracting us from the clear and simple message of the Cross.

The three things he covers are:

1. Fascination with the miraculous
2. Fascination with the moralistic
3. Fascination with the mysterious

This got me thinking, what is of greater importance to me: The simple (and seemingly foolish) message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, or the more socially acceptable and attractive things, such as: miracles, good morals, and mysteries? It seems that much of Modern Christianity is hyping the later category for all it is worth and ignoring the former one. Moralism and a hunger for miracles may "charge us up" and leave us with that fuzzy feeling, but focusing on them leaves us with a shakey foundation for our faith. While miracles, morals, and mysteries all are part of Christianity, ultimately the Cross needs to be the focal point of our faith as Christians.

What follows are a few short exerpts from the first two points that I found very true and helpful.

(on the miraculous)

"As in our Lord's day, few today who seek miracles are interested in that to which signs point. 'A wicked generation seeks for signs,' Jesus said, followed by Paul's reminder that his fellow Jews were so busy looking for miraculous wonders that they stumbled over the Gospel of Christ crucified. Seeking direct experiences with God without the mediation of Scripture, preaching, and sacraments..we trip over the weakness of the cross....Satan had offered Jesus a crown without a cross, so even Jesus' own brothers, impressed with his success as a miracle-worker, anxiously offered a tour of the major cities. Similarly, James and John wanted to call down fire on their enemies, and their mother came to Jesus to ask him to allow her sons to sit on his left and right hand in his kingdom. Everyone was planning for glory, but Jesus was planning for the cross. Triumphalism ignores the cross, and when the hour of trial (sin, failure, loss of popularity, shame, and abuse) comes, we, like the disciples, flee for cover instead of sharing in Christ's suffering."

(on the moralistic)

"Sadly, [many Christians] tend to read (and preach) the Bible moralistically: that is, either as positive tips for better living or as scolding for not being what one should be. Thus, the key biblical characters become heroes to imitate rather than figures in a redemptive-historical plot centering around Jesus Christ. Jesus told the Pharisees that in spite of their ostensive devotion to the Scriptures, they did not really understand what they were reading, since he (Jesus) is the point of all of Scripture.....The preoccupation with moralism finds the preaching of the cross 'foolishness'......When sin and grace are replaced with therapeutic, ethical, political, and pragmatic concerns, it is a sure sign that we too have stumbled over the Rock of offense."

Thinking Back

This past Sunday I shared my testimony at Grace Baptist Church of Essex.

As a Christian, I found that looking back and writing about God's grace and His working in my life is a really helpful thing. It is so easy to forget where I've been and what has transpired in my life. Not because it isn't remarkable, but simply because our human attention span is so short.

The fast pace of modern life makes it easy to shove aside the past. If we do ever consider it, often it is just with a sort of fuzzy "sentimentalism". The good old days. Those were the days. We set them aside and let them rust. We don't see their relation to the present.

In this day and age, I feel that we need to make a special effort to relate the past to the present. Not just when we are thinking about our testimony, but in many aspects of our life. And not just our past, but our past seen as being a part in the flow of history.

Christian Apologetics Podcast Reviews

I listen to a variety of podcasts pertaining to Christian apologetics, so I thought I'd put together a few reviews. Perhaps the people running them may read this feedback and find it useful, who knows?

The Dividing Line: I listened to this web cast long before I even knew what a podcast was. Consequently, after a hiatus from listening to the Dividing Line, I was very glad to see that they now have a podcast. I really must congratulate James in the way his show has really prospered. It maintains a unique sense of consistency and it is really quite informative. I'd say it is probably one of the best Christian apologetics podcasts out there, at least out of what I've seen so far. James pulls no punches and has a great deal of passion about the subjects he covers, but he also maintains a very scholarly and level-headed composure on the show. He really demonstrates a willingness to work through issues and interact with people on a very mature and scholarly level. James focuses mainly on Textual Criticism, Islam, Mormonism, and issues pertaining to Reformed theology. He frequently debates people and interacts with their material. The material James presents can be long-winded, but not in the murky sense. It is always presented in a cogent and effective manner. The emphasis on Textual Criticism and high-level surveys of Reformed Theology may make this show slightly out of the "area of interest" in a person just looking for general apologetics info, but for the serious individual who is commited to study, it is great!

The Narrow Mind: This podcast is perhaps more general than The Dividing Line. While it is still focused on apologetics, it covers a broader range of issues, often getting into eschatology, etc. A good deal of the content tends to do with debating with atheists and talking about Reformed Theology. The show has a great deal of variety and is very lively. It can be very fascinating and it has a great deal of dedicated listeners. Gene if a Reformed Baptist pastor and follows the apologetical style of Greg Bahsen. Gene gets some real interesting characters (or "cases"?) on his show. Particularly interesting was the time he had Dan Corner on the show and another time when he had a very far-out "Black Supremisist" sort of person online. Despite the positives, I do have some complaints about The Narrow Mind. While I like this show in many ways and find it stimulating, some aspects of the show are disheartening. I think the way some guests are handled only serves to reinforce certain stereotypes as to what evangelical Christians are like. I find some of the rhetoric to be rather harsh and also the sarcasm/satire sometimes become a bit excessive. I appreciate Gene's stand for the truth and I also understand that satire/sarcasm have their proper place, but the show is sometimes conducted puts me in the position where I can't recommend it without qualification. I think things could be done in a more charitable fashion. Don't get me wrong, there really is much that is very good about this show and I don't want my criticism of it to detract from that.

Faith and Reason: This is a radio show in Idaho run by Matt Slick. It is also available as a podcast and is run in conjunction with CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministries). Matt does a fine job of covering a number of different subjects and discusing them rationally and in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures. Matt gets all sorts of different callers and there really is a great deal of interaction and variety in the shows. I think he earns the respect that his callers give him, even those who disagree with him. He also has a tremendous amount of zeal and thirst for new ideas, new input, and reaching out in new areas. Sometimes the show gets a bit tedious when Matt either continues very long on one subject (you could call it a 'rant') or sometimes bringing up an interesting subject but then getting sidetracked by something else, leaving his listeners hanging! And his jokes get a bit corny sometimes (and repeated ad nauseum). That being said, Matt does a find job of intellectually defending the faith and doing it in a very charitable and patient way. Much can be learned in listening to how Matt interacts with people. Matt is a great example of how to remain friendly and charitable while still standing strong for the truth. His show is high quality just like his website

All three of these radio shows have the following: frequent guests, interesting topics, and hosts who are theologically sound and knowledgable. They have their own strong points and weak points. Two of them I can recommend without qualification (Faith&Reason and The Dividing Line). One I can recommend with one fairly important qualification (The Narrow Mind). It is wonderful to think that such shows exist with hosts that are providing a solid basis for the Christian faith.

Boston on Why We Owe Obedience to God

This particular exerpt comes from Thomas Boston, commenting on I Samuel 5:22. It discusses the reasons why we owe obedience to God.

l. Because he is our great and glorious Creator, to whom we owe our life and being. He is our Lord, and we are his subjects; he is our Master, and we are his servants. And therefore it is just and right that we should obey him, and conform to his will. He is every thing that speaks an authority to command us, and that can challenge an humility in us to obey. Man holds all of God, and therefore owes all the operations capable to be produced by those faculties, to the sovereign power that endued him with them. Man had no being but from him, and he hath no motion without him; he should therefore have no being but for him, and no motion but according to his will. To call him Lord, and not to act in subjection to him, is to mock and put an affront upon him. Hence it is said, 'Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?' Luke 6.46.

2. Because he is our chief end, the chief and last end of all being. The Lord hath made all things for himself; and of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. His glory should be the ultimate end of all our actions, and the mark to which they should all be directed. He gave being to all things, that they might shew forth his praise. All the brute creatures, things animate and inanimate, do this in a passive manner; but men and angels, who are rational agents, are bound to do this actively; and they are designed by God for this very end and purpose.

3. Because he is the conserving cause of all. As he gave man a being, so he upholds and preserves him therein, by his mighty power. The preservation of the creatures is as it were a continued creation; and in order to it there is necessary a continual exertion of divine power, and a constant efflux of providential influence, without which they could not move and act at all. As therefore the life and motions of men depend entirely upon God as their upholder, so that life and those motions should be employed for promoting his glory, and promoting his will.

4. Because of the eminency of his nature, which founds his supreme dominion over us. God is the most glorious and excellent of all beings, and the source and spring of all other beings whatsoever. He is possessed of all perfections in an infinite and transcendent manner. Whatever perfections, excellencies, and amiable qualities, are scattered among the creatures, they all unite in him in the utmost perfection, and in him they shine with the most resplendent glory.—And therefore he has a just title to the homage and obedience of all his creatures.

5. Because he is our good and gracious Benefactor, from whose bountiful hand all our mercies do flow. It is in him that we live, move, and have our being. Our health, strength, time, and all blessings, spiritual or temporal, that we enjoy, are the fruits of his goodness and providential care. Now, this lays strong obligations upon us to serve and obey him. We find the Lord aggravating the rebellion of the Jews from the care he had taken in bringing them up, and their miraculous deliverance from Egypt, Isa. 1.2. 'I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against me,' which clearly implies, that the benefits he had bestowed upon them were strong obligations to an ingenuous observance of him; and we find him threatening to deprive them of the blessings he had bestowed upon them, and to bring great distress upon them for the neglect of this duty, Deut. 28.47, &c.

6. Lastly, Because he is our Governor and supreme Lawgiver. He is a Lawgiver to all, to irrational as well as rational creatures. The heavens have their ordinances, Job 38.33. All the creatures have a law imprinted on their beings, but rational creatures have divine statutes inscribed on their hearts, as Rom. 2.14,15. 'When the Gentiles, which have not the [written] law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.' And they have laws more clearly and fully set before them in the word. The sole power of making laws does originally reside in God, Jam. 4.12. 'There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.' He only hath power to bind the conscience. And therefore to him obedience is due from all to whom he has prescribed laws.

The Knee-Jerk Reaction Against Ecological Concern

In reaction to the pantheistic, irreligious, and often pagan tendencies of many of those who show a concern for the environment, many Christians go to the opposite extreme and show blatent disregard for the environment and ecology. I've noticed a knee-jerk reaction from many Christians against talk of pollution/ecology. Far from belittling the study of ecology and a concern for the environment, a true knowledge of Christianity leads us to a proper and balanced view of our relationship to our environment.

Many people who should be congratulated for their healthy concern for ecology and nature have been treated with undue suspicion and skepticism by much of conservative Christianity. It is no big suprise that in recent times it is perceived that conservative evangelical Christianity is the enemy of ecology and environmental concern. On the other hand, Eastern religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism are perceived as being friendly and condusive to ecology and environmental concern. Though that may not be entirely true, we must sadly admit that many in our ranks have earned this bad reputation by treating plants and animals in a way which is unfit for creatures which God made. To dig a deeper hole, many times we compensate for our ignorance on matters of ecology and the environment by merely increasing the tone of our pompous rhetoric about how those "tree huggers" can't be trusted. I certainly don't consider myself to be a "tree hugger", but at this point I'll just state that I'd rather be guilty of valuing a masterpiece of God's creative activity too highly than not highly enough.

Here are some points which I would like to share on this subject:

1. While the common perception is quite the opposite, Christianity provides a much more solid and meaningful basis for ecology than the Pantheistic religions do (mainly eastern and tribal religions that say "everything" is God). Only Biblical Christianity can maintain a proper balance between the dignity of animals/plants and the difference between mankind and animals/plants. As Francis Schaeffer presented in "Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology", the Bible presents a balanced view which accounts for both our "oneness" with nature in one sense, and also our difference from nature. In a highly condensed nutshell form: God is infinite and personal. God is infinite, and that distinguishes us from Him. However, God is personal, and we share that with Him, as we are personal too. That explains our likeness and unlikeness with God. When it comes to animals/plans and mankind, there is also likeness and unlikeness. In the sense of being creatures made by God, both man and animals/plants are alike. On the other hand, man is personal and animals are not, which accounts for our unlikeness with animals/plants.

2. It is a false dichotomy--as some Christians seem to want to assume--that we must choose between either (a) abusing nature, or (b) worshipping nature. Not all. In fact, the Christian worldview provides a basis for BOTH treating nature with dignity and have a proper non-romanticized view of it. As Francis Schaeffer said in the aforementioned book, "The value of things is not in themselves..but that God made them, and thus they deserve to be treated with high respect. The tree in the field is to be treated with respect. It is not to be romaticized, as the old lady romantacizes her cat (that is, she reads human reactions into it). This is wrong because it is not true. When you drive the axe into the tree when you need firewood, you are not cutting down a person; you are cutting down a tree. But while we should not romanticize the tree, we must realize that God made it and it deserves respect because He made it is a tree. Christians who do not believe in the complete evolutionary scale have reason to respect nature...because we believe that God made these things specifically in their own areas. So if we are going to argue against the evolutionists intellectually, we should show the results of our beliefs in our attitudes. The Christian is the man who has a reason for dealing with each created thing on a high level of respect."

3. Treating animals and plants with respect does not mean we are saying we can't have dominion over them or use them appropriately. Man's dominion over nature in the pre-fall world is plain and clear (see Gen.1:28). But what it is saying that we must treat nature in the way God has treated it. He made it. He treats it with integrity, creating and sustaining each thing in its own proper order. Francis Schaeffer makes a great point when he says that: "If God treats the tree like a tree, the machine like a machine, the man like a man, shouldn't I....do the same--treating each thing in integrity in its own order? And for the highest reason; because I love God--I love the One who made it! Loving the Lover who has made it, I have respect for the thing He has made".

4. If an ant is in your house, you kill it, and if a tree is needed for firewood, you chop it down. But, we need to use discernment and restrain our urges. In fact, it is easy to miss that much of the excessive strains on the environment actually come from sin--namely lust. Human disregard for the environment (excessive deforestation, unnecessary pain inflicted on animals may seem like an isolated issue. But it isn't. Ever since the fall man has been tempted to exercise a form of skewed and sinful dominion, instead of the proper dominion entrusted to him from God. Man wants to ignore the God-given value of the things he sees around them, and treat them as meaningless objects to fulfill his lusts. This is manifested in many ways: Some men treat woman as if they were mere objects to satisfy their desires. Some employers disregard their employees, and see them as nothing more than objects which they must squeeze every last ounce of energy for the motive of profit. In a different but somewhat related vein, some people and companies see nature as nothing but a convenient object to exploit. They care nothing of its inherent beauty. These are diverese examples, but they all demonstrate a basic tendency toward plundering people and things around us rather than treating them with proper dignity. It is wrong to treat a fish as if it were a human. But it is also very wrong to treat fish as if they were purposeless resources only meant to satisfy our desires. As Christians, our tendencies should not reflect this corrupted "dominion", but rather the true dominion consistent both of respect and good governance that demonstrates that we really believe God created all that is around us. Christians of all people should be characterized by their treating people and things with dignity. This doesn't force people to be vegetarians, but it should cause them to treat all creatures, no matter what their role, with a certain sense of dignity. Instead of seeing everything as a mere resource to exploit, we Christians need to exercise restraint. A Christian should treat the opposite sex with dignity, their employees/employers with dignity, the nature that surrounds them with dignity. This is a tall task, but this is part of the now-and-here healing that the Christian worldview brings to the world.

5. Some people abuse the environment and then turn around to defend their behavior by pretending that their behavior is justified because there is a distinction between man and creature. They are correct on one account: that man is to be distinguished from plants/animals the Christian worldview makes plain. However, they are exhibiting an apparent lack of one of the most pronounced differences between man and animal: Namely, animals pursue their needs with an unrelenting biological pursuit and give no attention to ethical considerations. Humans, on the other hand, have the facilities to self-impose conscious limitation. The ability to regulate and throttle the satisfaction of our needs for ethical reasons is really a definite difference between humans and animals. And true strength and character is demonstrated in restraint rather than consumption. The very principle of management or dominion presupposes that we are weighing and considering these ethical issues. Hence, the man that abuses nature thinking he is maintaining the gap between man and animal is actually showing little understanding of what it means to be man!

6. A Bible-believing Christian can be a naturalist (not in the philosophic sense which denies the existence of the supernatural, but in the vocational or hobby sense) or an ecologist. Perhaps I haven't put this strongly enough. A Bible-believing Christian should be the best naturalist or ecologist. This is because of what the Bible says about performing our tasks as unto God AND because a Biblical Christian should have the strongest sense of why ecology/conservation is important.

7. Francis Schaeffer asks a wonderful question when he says "You may or may not want to walk barefoot to feel close to nature, but as a Christian what relationship have you thought of and practiced toward nature as your fellow creature, over the last ten years?" Not only are we to have dominion over nature, but we share a common groan together for the deliverance found in Jesus Christ's return--deliverance from the curse (Romans 8). People have varying degrees of interest in the wildlife around them. Some people's vocations (or hobbies) put them in closer contact to the plants and animals around them. However, all Christians should be to some degree or another in admiration of the beauty and majesty of the things God created. We should not be characterized as destroyers, but rather by a deep respect for all of the created order. As Francis Schaeffer said: "We may cut down a tree to build a house, or to make a fire to keep the family warm. But we should not cut down the tree just to cut down the tree...We have the right to rid our houses of ants ants; but what we have no right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it".

Yes, ants have a certain dignity! They are not humans, but they do derive dignity from their creator. Speaking of "honor" an "dignity" in regard to seemingly insignificant creatures may sound foreign to our highly industrialized sensibilities. But when we consider the glory and splendor of creation, it shouldn't sound so strange. Perhaps it is because we have forgotten the intrinsic value that animals/plants have--in and of themselves--they are not merely there to satisfy our desires for more profit, more possessions, etc. We must both uphold the dignity of creatures and the dignity of humans, each in their own order. As "vice-regents" of God on earth, we are in a sense sovereign over creatures. But our dominion over nature as a "vice-regent" is something we will be held accountable for. Man is not an animal and animals are not humans: they both have their own dignity in their own created order. Nature is neither a thing to abuse, nor a thing to worship. But we should never let our fear of "tree hugging" cause us to avoid a genuine awe and wonder at the beauty dignity of trees and other created things. As Christians we not only ponder the beauty of the plants and animals around us in and of themselves, but we can also see this beauty in each creature as a finite pointer to the infinite beauty of the One who created it.

Alienation and Abstraction

Two "A" words, Alienation and Abstraction, really seem to be words that describe much of our existence in a fallen world influenced by post-modernity.

We are around many people, but rarely communicate with any one of them. We have the tools to understand, probe, and examine, but we are fed a steady diet of cold summaries.

Imagine this hypothetical man:

He gets up in the morning on a week day, and quickly moves from one alienation to another. He half-heartedly says goodbye to the wife and kids. The only way he can drag himself to work is to know he is escaping his family. And the only way he can drag himself to his family is knowing he is escaping his work. Both environments are hostile. He could easily be cut off from either one of these environments. The one by a souring relationship and a divorce. The other by a souring economy and a layoff. He has both a job and a family, but at the same time it seems he doesn't have them.

Finally this hypothetical man is done work. He works his way through a crowded street. There are many people just like him, but he feels no reason to care. His eyes darn quickly to avoid eye contact. In his car, he turns on his radio and hears the weather. He hears that there has been 7 inches of snow in the last 24 hours in Colorado, or maybe it was 8. And the Nasdaq is going down too. It doesn't make much of a difference to him. As he leaves his car and heads into his, our hypothetical man's wife gives him a report of the state of affairs. The babysitter can't come until 8pm. Etc. Etc. He half listens to all that while listening to the latest sport scores. He flips the channel and finds that 5 more soliders were killed in Iraq. He's never been there or known anyone who has. 5 deaths don't phase him, nor does the next news blip which states that some 50 people died in an earthquake somewhere out in the East.

That is just small sampling of the alienation and abstraction that your average person goes through in a day.

Ever since the Fall, alienation has been active in just about every relationship that could be imagined. Human-to-human relationships (parents-children, husband-wife, friends, lovers) have had an element of alienation due to sin. But also, the fall also accounts for alienation between man and plants/animals, and even the relationship between animals. It isn't that these relationships have disappeared, but rather that they have been damaged. Even when they are in place, it is easy for a sense of alienation to creep, especially when things are not held in a proper perspective. And I think there are recently developments in culture and technology which pronounce these alienations.

Abstraction may be a little more difficult to pinpoint. There are many levels of abstraction. It isn't always easy to discern them. And abstraction is necessary in all thought, but I'd suggest that at some points, abstraction lets us escape some things that we shouldn't be allowed to escape. A suitable definition of abstraction could be "the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances." Abstraction becomes nasty when we use this tool for condensing and focusing our thought in either a harmful way or use it to escape the reality of our alienation.

This problem is a large problem that can easily be evaded, but not easily resolved. In fact, it will never be resolved as long as we live under the understanding that we are bags of matter and the assumption that there is nothing beyond the material. However, even if we have some of the proper basic building blocks, we need to have a further understanding of the place of humans in this universe, their relation to each other and other creatures, and ultimately their relation to God. If Christianity is true, it must have answers to these sort of things. I believe it does. I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that Christianity alone has a view of the universe which accurately and properly describes the human condition.

I get the feeling that, as correct as our theology may be, a large portion of the evangelical Christian church is furthering this alienation. Instead of skillfully and faithfully holding forth the gospel and carrying out the work commissioned to us as ambassadors for Christ in our unique circumstances, it seems that too often we are only further bringing about the ugliness of the Fall while at the same time at least partially hypocritically proclaiming healing. We are asking people to cross a bridge to our side, but wonder when they point at our side and say "why?" when they see our state of affairs.

What must you and I do, individually, in order to live out a world view which allegedly (as my contention would be) solves the problem of modern man's alienation from each other and God? This is a question that I've arrived at while on vacation, enjoying God's earth, reading, talking, thinking, watching, etc.

If Someone Should Rise From the Dead

In Luke 16 we see a striking account of a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man. Part of this account contains a dialog between Abraham and the rich man, which is covered in Luke 16:24. This is a simplified presentation of what was said:

Rich Man - "Then I beg you, father, to send [Lazarus] to my father's house—for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'"
Abraham - "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them."
Rich Man - "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent."
Abraham - "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

On a surface level, without knowing what the Bible teaches elsewhere, it would be easy to discount what Abraham says here as not corresponding with reality. What the Rich Man says in this dialog sounds quite plausible. Certainly, we could assume, there would be a higher probability that the Rich Man's brothers would repent if they could witness a in-person resurrection.

However, there is one glaring error that caused the Rich Man to say what he did and it is an error that often plauges our thinking too. The Rich Man falsely assumed that his brothers minds were neutral, and that the basic problem is that they merely haven't been exposed to persuasive enough evidence yet. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. The Rich Man's brothers were exposed to the Word of God and, as Jews, they had more than sufficient revelation to know their responsibilities before God. Their basic problem was rebellion not a lack of revelation.

This same problem is in full force today. I certainly don't want to discount the importance or value of evidence for the Christian faith, but we need be more aware of the fact that the unbelieving mind filters all evidence through a filter, which is most pronouncedly affected by the fallen, sinful human condition. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, even the most convincing evidence will fall short of persuading anyone. And we should get serious about giving some attention on our part to the presuppositions/worldviews of those we are encountering, instead of just focusing on hurling evidence at people.

The truth is that the human mind is prone to reject ALL evidence that would be contrary to its innermost presuppositions. This means that no evidence would be sufficient to change their mind in and of itself. This was made crystal clear in a debate I once listened to. If I remember correctly It was between a Christian (Douglas Wilson) and an Athiest (Dan Barker). At one point the Christian asked what evidence would be sufficient to persaude him that God exists. By my recollection, the Athiest presented a very unusual scenario where God would audibly speak, something would be levitated and rotated in the air, and a number of other remarkable things. At that point through further cross examination, the Christian was able to establish that even then, with such remarkable and unquestionablly abnormal circumstances, the Athiest would still be unwilling and/or unable to conclusively determine whether it was God or not. Why? Because there would be a myriad of other explanations and justifications that could be offered (what if it was UFOs pretending to be God, a hallucenation, etc. etc.). We are incapable of totally objective thoughts, the human mind always falls back to certain deep seated presuppositions that determine how we interpret the evidence. And those who despise God will find countless other possible explanations for just about anything they encounter.

What does this mean practically in our witness and apologetics for the truth?

1. God saves and God alone. Our evidence can't do it directly . Our preaching can't do it directly. Our love/good works can't do it directly. All these are necessary and are part what a faithful Christian does, but if the Holy Spirit is not working inwardly while we are working outwardly, nothing will happen. This does not eliminate the need for our actions and our words, but it puts what we do in a proper context.

2. There are epistemological (the study of knowledge, ie. how one knows things) issues that need to be addressed when discussing the plausability of the Christian faith. If we skip this discussion and plunge into evidence, the discussion is likely to go around in circles ever missing the core issue (not evidence in and of itself, but how the evidence is handled).

3. Everyone has many presuppositions, and we should aim at challenging unbelievers most basic ones. Some presuppositions are more basic than others. The most basic ones determine the less basic ones. You can spend years trying to persaude someone to change one of their non-core presuppositions, and you may even succeed. But that won't change their overall outlook. Only by having changed inner/core pressuppositions will one have correct non-basic presuppositions. So we should seek ways to examine some of those basic presuppositions and be able to show inconsistencies in them. For example, if you were to persaude someone that there was a global flood some time in history, but they remain commited to a materialistic worldview (ie. believing that there is nothing immaterial or "spiritual"), you have accomplished very little. It may be lending credence to God's Word, but as long as they exclude the possibility of the supernatural, they will likely find another explanation for it and certainly won't accept God's Word regarding what happened.

4. Because God saves and God saves alone, ultimately we have a great consolation when we seem to "fail" in reaching others. We certainly should do our best to present God's ways in a coherent and convincing way. We certainly should try to remove all obstacles that prevent us from relating and communicating with those we come into contact to. We certainly should look inwardly and examine our hearts to make sure our relations with others are exemplifying the fruit of the Spirit. However, the fact that someone rejects what we say or continues in their unbelief does not mean that we have done a poor job. If the masses were not persuaded by Jesus and His miracles, we can't expect any more of a positive response than He did. However, where God opens the door for it, there is a great opportunity out there to be used of God in sharing His gospel and engaging in conversation for His glory and His kindom.

Alan Watts on the Gaze of the Christian God

I'm reading a book by Alan Watts, "The Book". He was famous for doing a lot to bridge the gap between the new mysticism (Western counterculture) and the old mysticism (Eastern philosophy/religion).

As I read this book, I'm acutely aware that as a Christian I do not accept his conclusions and in fact find a number of them quite bizarre and off-the-wall. His view of "god" and our existence can not explain reality as it really is. I'm reading this book mainly because I like to know
something about the things I critique.

As I've been reading through the book, I found a statement of his that really jumped out of the page. While I neither agree with his overarching thesis nor his developing argument, something about this statement made me say "WOW":

"The image of God as a personal Being, somehow 'outside' or other than the world, had the merit of letting us feel that life is based on intelligence, that the laws of nature are everywhere consistent in that they proceed from one ruler, and that we could let our imaginations go to the limit in conceiving the sublime qualities of this supreme and perfect Being. The image also gave everyone a sense of importance and meaning. For this God is directly aware of every tiniest fragment of dust and vibration of energy, since it is just his awareness of it that enables it to be. This awareness is also love and, for angels and men at least, he has planned an everlasting life of the purest bliss which is to begin at the end of mortal time. But of course there are strings attached to this reward, and those who purposely and relentlessly deny or disobey the divine will must spend eternity in agonies as intense as the bliss of good and faithful subjects.

The problem of this image of God was that it became too much of a good thing. Children working on their desks in school are almost always put off when even a kindly and respected teacher watches over their shoulders. How much more disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers, that nowhere on earth or in heaven is there any
hiding-place from that Eye which sees all and judges all."

For all his faults, there are two things in this excerpt that Alan gets right on the money:

1. He identifies (at least as a concession) that the Christian view of God is the foundation for importance, meaning in life, and consistency in the laws of nature.

2. He identifies why the unbeliever does not like the Christian concept of God, He's far too all-knowing, far too holy and just, etc. Humans who rebel against the "Teachers of teachers" can not hide from the eye of God, so naturally they would much rather want no God, or at least a "god" who can be fooled and avoided.

Indeed there is no "hiding place" for those who continue to defy the God who created them.
Many people innately know that a personal God is the very foundation for the things that they depend upon in their life, and yet they still rebel against Him and deny His existence simply because they come to the conclusion that Alan Watts reached: It is "disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers". I agree that it is disconcerting to our independent spirit to know that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Unfortunately, though, denying reality does not evade the necessity of dealing with it.

Monday's Question

Q. Does baptism save?

A. No. Baptism is neither a prerequisite for salvation nor does it actually save in the sense of causing salvation. The Biblical understanding of the gospel is that salvation is apprehended through faith in the finished work of Christ, and no outward ordinance or work of our hands could accomplish that (Titus 3:4-7). The wonderous work of salvation is accomplished by the blood of Christ and not anything physical on the part of the believer (1 Peter 1:18-19). Baptism signifies or symbolizes the identification of the believer with Christ, his/her being buried and rising again with Christ (Col. 2:11-12), and is used as an entry rite into the visible church. Believers are not saved because we are baptised, but rather believers are baptised because they have been saved.

Some common verses put forward that allegedly "prove" that baptism saves or is a prerequisite to salvation include Acts 22:16, I Peter 3:21, John 3:5, and Acts 2:38.

Acts 22:16 says "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." It should first be noted that "Rise" and "calling" are "aorist participles" while the references to baptism and cleansing or washing are "aorist imperatives". It is in accord with the text to say that individuals are being instructed to rise and be baptised in view of the fact that their sins have been washed through calling upon the name of the Lord.

I Peter 3:21 says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The "..which corresponds.." refers to the previous discussion of Noah and the ark. As Matt Slick from CARM points out, "antitupon" is used here, and its meaning includes "a type" or "a copy". However, the difficulty here is determining what exactly the correspondence is refering to. Does baptism correspond to the ark? Or the water? Or the salvation that Noah experiences? Or the patience of God in the days of Noah (which is the greater context starting with v20)? Or perhaps way which the correspondance occurs is the link between both baptism and the ordeal with the ark involving "brought safely through water". It is difficult to know exactly what this is refering to, but either way it says nothing to tie baptism to salvation, in fact it denies that by stating that baptism doesn't save us in the sense of washing our filth, but rather "saves" in the sense of being an appeal to God for a good conscience, and even that is ultimately brought to us through Christ's resurrection and symbolized through baptism.

John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The first thing to notice is that this passage nor the previous four verses do not refer explicitly to baptism. So, if this passage is talking about baptism, it would have to be because "born of water" refers to baptism. There are several common interpretations of what "born of water" means. One of them is baptism. Another is the work of the Holy Spirit, which is elsewhere refered to by the analogy of washing. But, in my opinion, the strongest match for "born of water" is the natural birth. Why? Because of the context. In John 3:5 "born of water" and "born of spirit" are listed. In the very next verse, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" is stated. Notice how "born of water / born of spirit" is set along "born of flesh / born of spirit". It would be a very large coincidence if Jesus were to use such a parallel and all the while be really speaking of baptism, which isn't mentioned explicitly anywhere else in the narrative.

Acts 2:38 records Peter as saying "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". This is perhaps the most genuinely difficult text out of this particular set. On the surface it does seem to teach baptismal regeneration. A full discussion of this text is beyond the scope of this post. However, it should be noted that the Greek word "eis" is rendered in this passage as "for". Both "for" and "eis" can be used in various ways. Sometimes they can mean "in order that" (in other words indicating a cause/effect), and other times they can be used in a way which moreso means "in light of" or "in acknowledgement of". For example, if I say "I'm going to school FOR my Masters Degree", I'm using "for" in the "..in order to obtain.." sense. However, if I say "I'm buying you a book FOR your birthday", it would be silly to understand "for" in the "in order that" sense!! Does my gift to you cause your birthday? Of course not! My gift is "in light of" or "in acknowledgement of" your birthday. In the same manner, I believe there is a number of strong reasons (context, theological consistensy, and other textual issues) to suppose that Acts 2:38 is using "eis" in the "in acknowledgement of" sense instead of the "in order that" sense. That mean Acts 3:28 is teaching that "Baptism is in acknowledgement of forgiveness of sins", not that "Baptism is performed in order that forgiveness of sins may occur". There are many more academic and comprehensive surveys of this issue with Acts 2:38 which you may want to review. They are from: CARM, Christian Research Journal, Got Questions?, Alpha & Omega Ministries, and Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal.

Throughout redemptive history, people confused symbols with the inward reality they were meant to portray. The Israelites misunderstood circumcision in this way, forgetting that circumcision was not an end to itself, but rather was a means to represent and portray what God would do to the heart of His people. In Romans 4, Paul demonstrated that since Abraham was justified before God before circumcision, it followed that it was faith and not circumcision that made him right before God. It should be noted that the false teachers which Paul upbraided in Galatians also were teaching the same errant view of the relation of the "sign" or "seal" and the actual reality it was meant to represent.

In the Gentile church in this era, circumcision no longer seems to be an active controversy. However, baptism is an outward sign of a greater inward reality, and many confuse the sign with the inward reality much in the same way that the judiazers in the Galatian church and the Israelites of old did. They rightly regard the outward sign as being important, but they confuse it and mingle it too closely with the inward reality failing to understand that the seal is not a condition to the inward reality nor does it cause it. Biblically, as Abraham's justification was not dependant on his circumcision, so too the baptism of a believer is not a prerequisite or cause of justification, but rather an outward representation pointing to it.

The understanding of baptism not being a condition or cause for salvation comes from both a Biblical understanding of baptism, and also a Biblical understanding of how it is that sinners are made right before God. It is a horrible error to confuse baptism with salvation to the extent that baptism is seen as either a part of or prerequisite to salvation. However, it is also a horrible error to view baptism in a deragatory way, seeing it as an insigificant step. Baptism is both very significant and important! And it is an express command of Christ. Hence, for a disciple to purposely avoid it would be an rebellion and disobedience. But yet baptism or lack thereof does not initiate nor negate the work of Christ. The Biblical teaching that salvation is an act of God accomplished by the work of Christ alone apart from baptism does not minimize the need for baptism, but rather establishes it! Being in truth united with Christ by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, there then is a basis and desire to publically manifest that inward reality with a "sign" or "ordinance" signifying it.