What must we do, to being doing the "works of God"?

The Work of God

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”^[1]

This question is from John 6:28 and comes from a group of unbelievers who had just seen Jesus preach and perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes.  Jesus offers an unexpected answer.  He actually ignores their question and tells them what they actually need to hear.

These men clearly had an unrepentant, religious mindset.  They ask the Lord, “What must we do?”  When dealing with God this is the exact wrong question.  Instead of justifying this wrong question with a response, Jesus ignores them and answers the question they should have asked.  He answers, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”  He tells them what God’s work is.  God’s work in them is that they believe in his Christ.

Some have read this passage to say that Jesus responds something like, “These are the works that God desires of man.”  There are even some Bible “translations” (I hesitate to use that word) that render it that way.  But the fact is that it is grammatically impossible to read the Greek text in such a way.  The phrase is Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, “This is the work of God.”  No connotation of desiring anything of man anywhere in the words.  Furthermore, to read it like this creates a contradiction of the biblical teaching that we are saved, “apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

Also to understand this exchange the way I have presented it is to read directly in the context of the rest of this passage.  Jesus goes on to explain to this group of unbelievers about God’s unconditional election of sinners to salvation through believing in his son.  This section details the work of God in saving his people to the uttermost, drawing the elect, losing none that are his.  Once you are his you CANNOT walk away.  Christ does the father’s will perfectly.  John 6 contains beautiful truths that should be precious to anyone who claims the name of Christ.  The next time you think, “What must I do?”  Remember how Christ answered this crowd, “This is what God has done.”

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 6:28–29). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

John 3:16 – For God “so loved” the world?

I discovered something interesting recently.  Most of you do not know that I started learning Ancient Greek a few months ago.  I don’t know a lot about the language yet, but I do know enough to notice something in the Bible’s most famous verse.  Here is the first section of John 3:16 in Koine Greek:

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον

The English of this sentence is the well-known translation, “For God so loved the world.”

The word translated “so” is the Greek word “Οὕτως” (pronounced: “houtos”).  This word most often means “thus”, “so” or “in this manner”.   It is a word that almost always signifies the “manner” of something as opposed to the “degree” of something.

I don’t know about you, but when I read this verse, I always heard, “God SO loved the world”, as in, “God loved the world SO much, that he gave…”.   According to the Greek word, “Οὕτως”  this is not so.   What it actually says is “God so loved the world”, as in, “God, in this manner loved the world; that he gave…”  The word “so” is used in the same way Captain Jean-Luc Piccard in Star Trek used it when he gave a command by saying, “Make it so.”

Another thing about Greek is that the word order of a sentence does not having any bearing on the meaning, like it does in English.  Instead, words are put in the beginning of a sentence to provide emphasis on them.  Since “Οὕτως” is the first word of the sentence in John 3:16, it is emphasized.   This means that a good translation of this verse in English might be, “For in this manner God loved the world; that he gave…”

This is not a new discovery.  This is well known Greek grammar.  In fact, the Holman Christian Standard Bible translation renders it like this: “For God loved the world in this way:^[a] He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

Translating “Οὕτως” as “so”, is not technically incorrect English.  It just sounds like it means something different in modern English.  At least it did to me.  Maybe it did to you too.

Anyway, God Bless.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Falling "in love" with Jesus?

Something has been bugging me ever since I became a Christian.  It is the idea that as a Christian, I am supposed to be "falling in love" with Jesus.  If I am being honest with myself this idea makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable.  There is something off-putting about the very notion of "falling in love" with the Lord of Glory, yet this idea is ubiquitous in modern evangelical worship, both musical and otherwise.  I guess my problems are as follows:

Firstly, "falling in love" is a phrase that by its very nature stirs up high levels of emotion.  That is not in and of itself bad, but the problem is that emotions are subjective by nature.  They are experienced differently, by different people.  Personally, I "fell in love" multiple times before I met my wife.  I felt intense emotional connections that at the time I could only describe as love.  As a Christian, who now has a Biblical worldview,  I realize that what I felt was intense lust for those women, not love.  

In order for the idea of falling in love to be useful in worship, it needs to be defined Biblically, not emotionally.  As I write this, I am watching the Catfish MTV show, where the subject is claiming to have fallen in love with someone she has never met, yet has regular phone sex with.  Is this love?  Certainly not.  Yet this is how the phrase is used in the world today.  When it is said that we need to" fall in love" with Jesus, it is almost never qualified Biblically.  In my opinion this is not only not helpful, it could actually be harmful to the saints.

This leads me to my second, and far more important concern.  Is this idea even Biblical?  If it isn't, then where does it come from, and why is it so common in worship today?  I am completely comfortable with the idea of loving God.   But again, love must be defined Biblically to have any meaning at all.  I believe love is very clearly defined in the Bible in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere.  None of that has anything to do with the vague concept of "falling in love", prevalent in today's culture.

At this point I must point out that I am aware of the metaphor used in Scripture of the Church being the bride of Christ.  But I am not sure this necessarily has anything to do with the modern exhortation for individual Christians to "fall in love" with Jesus.  Furthermore, I am not an expert on the institution of marriage as it was practiced in the time of the Apostles, but I am not convinced "falling in love" with her husband was the determining factor of whether or not the woman married him.  It's very likely that the metaphor of the Church as the bride, meant something very different to the initial audience of the Scriptures than it would to our modern sensibilities.

The greatest commandment, according to Jesus, our Mighty God, King of kings, and Lord of lords, is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind.  This is indisputable truth.  But is that love, which is commanded by Jesus in Matthew 22, akin to "falling in love" as defined by today's culture?  If not, isn't it about time that we stop talking about it like it is?

I am honestly posing these as questions.  (Excuse me for channeling my inner Rob Bell's "I'm just asking questions" style.)  Personally the use of the phrase "falling in love" pertaining to Christ is uncomfortable based on what I know about Him through the Bible.  I readily admit I may be missing something Scripturaly here.  I would welcome any thoughts or comments anyone may have on this issue.

Born That Way

The Bible teaches that homosexuals are sinners by nature.  This is not a debatable issue.  This is an essential teaching that all Christians must accept.  Heterosexuals are likewise sinners by nature.  This also is not a debatable issue.  This is clear teaching from the word of God.  “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

The debate over homosexuality should not be had over whether or not a homosexual is “born that way”.   That makes no difference.   Christian, is it really so hard to believe that someone is born with a predisposition, or a desire towards sin?  Of course not.  The Bible teaches that God created Adam perfect.  Adam decided to rebel against the God who created him and because of that we all, by nature, join him in that rebellion.  We are all “born that way”, though that predisposition towards sin manifests itself in different ways in different people.

The real issue is one of repentance.  As Christians we are called to deny ourselves and follow Jesus. (Matthew 16:24)  Many people know this verse, but few in our culture truly live it out.  Pastor Saeed Abedini is living it out.  He is in prison in Iran.  He suffers regular beatings with no medical care.  Eventually he will be killed.  He knew that he faced this when he decided to preach the Lord Jesus Christ to the lost in Iran.  He has a wife and kids who miss him dearly.   Wouldn’t he rather be with them right now?  Of course he would.  But he loves God more than he loves himself, and so he preached Christ to the Muslims of Iran.  (And continues to do so in prison in between beatings.)

The issue of homosexuality is one of repentance.  If a homosexual truly resolves in their heart to deny their own desires, no matter how innate, it will hurt.  But that is what God requires.  He requires a change in the mind about sin.  You must hate your sin and love God.  You must trust in the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross on behalf of your own failings.  To do this you must repent from your desires.  Just like I must repent of my desires.

I am an adulterer.  Vile and wicked.  The Lord Jesus Christ said, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)  I fail that test, and it is a deadly serious sin.  Do I want to look at women with lustful intent?  No.  I desperately want to change.  I hate it.  I was born that way.  This DOES NOT make it right.  It makes me a sinner to a Holy God.

What can I do?  All I can do is throw myself on the mercy of the Judge.  All I can do is recognize that it is not okay, even though I was “born that way”.   I need to repent from my own sinful desires and believe in the complete forgiveness available to me through the death, burial, and resurrection of our God, and Savior, Jesus Christ.

If you are reading this, you are also “born that way”.  No matter how it manifests in you, we are all in the same boat.  There is forgiveness in Christ, but only in Christ.  Outside of Christ there is only wrath and condemnation.  (Not from me, but from God.)  I beg you to repent and believe the good news of Jesus Christ, our God.

Exiles Part One: Peter Preaches the Trinity, the Gospel, and Contradicts Pluralism

Today at Movement NYC, the preaching was on 1 Peter verses 3-5.  Because I spend a good deal of time communicating with unbelievers, listening to their many objections, I tend to notice things in scripture that might have explanatory power for a skeptical audience.  I noticed one such thing in the introductory sentences of Peter's letter.

The introduction to 1 Peter (verses 1 and 2), contain a clear declaration of the concept of the Trinity.  All three members of the Godhead are present in this passage, as well as their distinct roles in the salvation of men.   The Father "foreknows and elects", the Spirit "sanctifies", and the Son atones.  In non-christian circles such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism, often the criticism is levied that the Bible does not teach the Trinity.  The opening of 1 Peter stands in direct contradiction to that idea.

One particularly interesting point brought up during the sermon was that in verse 3, Peter says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Emphasis added)  He specifies that God is the Father of Jesus, and not some other god.  This is important today, because the word "god" has so many different connotations that unless it is defined, it is meaningless.  If someone came up to you at Union Square and told you they knew how to get closer to god, what would they be saying to you?   They could be quoting that Nine Inch Nails song referring to some kind of sex, they could be trying to sell you drugs, or they could be talking about some pseudo-spiritual, new age, cosmic "force" of some kind.  In our pluralistic, "whats true for you is true" type of culture, this vague idea of god is acceptable, perhaps even preferable.  After all, isn't it arrogant to think that one concept of God is true and all others false?  Our culture tells us that all religions tell us truth about God.  This attitude, however, MUST and DOES exclude the religion established by the resurrection Jesus Christ.

This is because the resurrection proved that Jesus was God, just like he said he was.  If he was not God, he would not have resurrected.  If Jesus is God, and he is, that means that any religion that teaches he is not God, cannot be true and leads to eternal damnation.  Jesus said as much;  "unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins." (John 8:24).  In order for any other religion to be true, Christianity must be false.  Christianity is not false, therefore no other religion can be true.  Peter makes this abundantly clear by identifying Jesus as Lord, and God as his Father.

One other interesting thing I noticed from the sermon is that verses 3-5, are actually a very early confession of the gospel message in summary form, including the specific roles of all three person of the Trinity.  This is important because often times atheists and other non-Christians will claim that these doctrines came much later, and were developed over time by people who did not know the real Jesus.  Peter was closer to Jesus than even Paul, and he summarizes the gospel clearly in these verses:

Regarding salvation he identifies:

the Cause:          "According to his great mercy he has caused us..."

the Effect:          "to be born again to a living hope through..." 

the Means:          "the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

the Result:          "to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading..."

our Response:     "through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed..."

The Father causes us to be "born again" by the Holy Spirit, and shows us mercy by the death and ressurection of the Son, who atones for our sins, so that we are given an eternal inheritance in heaven.  This is ours simply by receiving it, through our repentance and trusting God.  This is the gospel.  It is all right there, in the opening sentences of Peter's letter.

The truly remarkable thing about all this is that Peter was just a regular guy.  He was a fisherman who had a knack for being the most hard-headed of Jesus' disciples.  That he so deeply understood the implications of Jesus' life, death and ressurection, so early on, should encourage all of us.  If God can powerfully use a man like Peter, he can use our meager efforts as well.  I am looking forward to opening up 1 Peter even more in the coming weeks.

Atheism: Epistemological Bankruptcy

Here is an exchange I had with an atheist I might on twitter.  Thought some of you might like to take a look at the conversation (my responses are in red):

 

Speaking with @AdamRobles over the last few days we have been unable to resolve an argument that for me started with the statement from Adam:-

Atheism is built upon unjustified and often unexamined presuppositions/assumptions about the universe and its intelligibility.

I have seen this presuppositional argument before. The crux of the argument, and I invite Adam to correct me if I am wrong here is that...

In order for the scientific method or any kind of logic or inference to be valid the universe needs to be intelligible. Since the scientific method is predicated on the assumption that the universe is intelligible you can't use the scientific method to verify that the universe is in fact intelligible. The atheist therefore is unable to verify the foundation of any of their inferences which according to the theist amounts to blind faith in the intelligibility of the universe. Moreover the theist contends that a naturalistic world view should inevitably lead to an unintelligible universe because the theist also claims that a god is the only possible reason that the universe could be intelligible and as such the atheist lives inconsistently with their world view by using tools like logic and the scientific method.

What this argument does quite well is hide its premises so that it is hard to spot the logical fallacies and it quite cleverly puts the conclusion at the start of the argument so that when an attempt to deconstruct it is made using logic the theist will attempt to dismiss the argument by claiming that he has already shown that the atheist use of logic has been undermined.

Lets examine the hidden premises then.

Premise 1. The universe was caused.

Premise 2. A universe that is intelligible must be caused by a mind.

Premise 3. A universe not caused by a mind must necessarily be unintelligible.

Premise 4. It is possible for there to be an unintelligible universe.

Premise 5. The proposition of an intelligible universe is somehow faith based and cannot be inferred from observation.

　

Chris,

To make the point of my initial tweet I have no need for premises 1-4. In order for a secular person to hold the intelligibility of the universe, which almost all of them do, they must basically appeal to intuition or experience: "It just appears to be intelligible, our methods just work, so we go with them. Why does it work? It works just because it works!" This is blind faith. This is not a rational conclusion to reach as a secularist. It is a faith position. I know faith is the "F" word to secularists. But epistemologically your faith is clearly exposed.

　

Some secularists would say, "Look we don’t know why it works, but we await further evidence to find out." This statement radically fails to see the problem for what it is. It also exposes how futile non-Christian thought has become. This person is awaiting evidence based on the assumption of intelligibility, by which it hopes to explain intelligibility. Assume intelligibility to explain intelligibility. Presto! For the secularist, the whole enterprise science and knowledge is based upon blind faith. Not an enviable position for the reason crowd. But unfortunately epistemology goes unexamined for the vast majority of atheist. (The essence of the original tweet)

The choices we have are (1) the Christian solution to this colossal epistemology problem OR (2) you simply must ignore the problem and pretend like it wasn’t there. These are the only choices available.

Even though I do not need to respond to the other premises, since I assume none of them to make my argument that secularists are essentially men of strong blind faith that would make even the most committed Mormon blush, I will.

　

Question 1. Can you demonstrate that the universe was caused?

There are various ways to do this. But instead of going into it, lets pretend that the universe was uncaused. If that were true, then we have an even worse epistemological crisis. If the universe itself can break the law of causality, why would we have any reason to trust this central law in any of the physical sciences? Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face. Are you really willing to jump of this kind of epistemological cliff? I am certainly not.

Question 2. What evidence or experience would lead you to believe that an intelligible universe must be caused by a mind?

The only alternative to this conclusion is a blind faith position; that the non-rational somehow begets the rational. Intellectually, I cannot accept an epistemology based on blind faith. Therefore I am forced into accepting the idea of a rational cause begetting a rational effect. This is not only intellectually satisfying, but it gives me a foundation for future knowledge-seeking efforts.

Question 3. Why do you believe that an uncaused or undesigned universe must be unintelligible?

Because to believe otherwise would be a blind faith position. An uncaused universe is an accidental universe. It would have purely accidental origins and, by inference, purely accidental features. There is no reason to believe that purely accidental features would have any understandable relation to each other OR any understandable relation to our minds. Any apparent relations we could point to (though I am not aware of any in secular thought) would themselves be accidental and thus called into question. For the secularist, skepticism is the only intellectually consistent position. This is again, an epistemological cliff I am unwilling to jump from.

Question 4. Why would you even consider that it is possible for a universe to be unintelligible, which unintelligible universes have you witnessed?

I wouldn’t. I would argue that it is not possible for a universe to be unintelligible. I would argue that that intelligibility of the universe reflects its rational origin.

　

Basically, there is nothing inconsistent between assuming the universe is intelligible and having a naturalistic world view and it very much seems that by posing the problem of intelligibility vs unintelligibility the theist has created from nothing a problem, that probably doesn't exist, that they believe can only be solved by adding a god.

I agree the problem doesn’t exist if you are willing to make the assumption that your are making on blind faith. But as you are acutely aware, blind faith is not a good way to decide what to believe. Ignoring the obvious defeater of your foundational beliefs is roughly workable day to day, but intellectually, and dare I say spiritually, you are in a dangerous predicament. You are lying to yourself at every point.

　

I am reminded of the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans: (Chapter 1, starting at verse 18.)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world

in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Ethiopia Post: Pure and Undefiled Religion

It has been a few days since I touched down at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  Over the past 48 hours or so it has been become very clear to me that somehow I am going to be connected to this country for the rest of my life.  There are things in this country and the people that live in it, that are greater and more beautiful than anything else I have experienced in the world.  At the same time, there are things in this country that are darker and more sinister than anything I ever thought could happen in real life.

I have heard some of the difficult stories before, but they never lose their power.  I have heard of the countless fathers who have abandoned their families to a life on the street, because of their spineless desire to look out for number one.  I have heard of the tribes in the less developed country who kill babies they deem “cursed” because through an accident of nature their teeth didn’t grow the right way.  I have heard of countless preventable illness and conditions that are a death sentence here, while easily treatable in the United States.  I have even heard the absolutely enraging tale of a project director for a group for orphaned children, claiming the name of Christ while at the same time pocketing donation money, sexually abusing the children, and making them put on happy faces for donor visits under threat of physical abuse.

These are not easy things to hear about.   But not hearing about them would not make them any less true.

More real though than the stories I have heard, are the children I have seen.  Literally thousands of children wander the streets of Addis or the countryside, utterly alone.  I have met hundreds of these children also at various orphanages and care centers.  Obviously because of the communication barrier it is hard to really connect with every one of them, but on some level it’s fairly simple to communicate with a smile, or holding hands, or my favorite, a laugh.  The easiest way is to ask them what their name is in Amharic.   Once they tell me, I point to my head and tell them, “My name is, Malata”, which sends them into hysterical laughter every single time.  Malata means “bald” in Amharic. 

In the middle of all these visits and children I came across one of One Child Campaign’s projects in Shone, about a seven hour drive out of the city.  There in the middle of endless farmland, mud huts, and wandering children is a small compound with a church building made of sticks and mud, attached to a two room cement structure.  Next to this stands a shell of new construction, about a third of the way done with 5 rooms.   Right now it’s just cement walls and a roof, but the vision is an orphanage for abandoned children in the area.  It is not uncommon for infants to be found abandoned in the bush, and at the moment there is nowhere for these children to go anywhere close by.

There is a difference between this orphanage, and some of the others I have visited.  This orphanage is modeled on others started by the same church here in Addis Ababa.  They are purposely kept small to focus on the children as much as possible.  The idea is that the children will feel like they have a home at the orphanage, rather than like they interned there because no one else wants them at the moment.  The woman who runs these projects puts a heavy emphasis on making the children feel loved, like they really matter in the here and now, even though the point is to place them into loving and qualified homes as soon as possible.   She told me that in Shone, she will make an exception to her ordinary rule of 10 children at a time.  (5 boys, 5 girls)  She says she will not turn away any infants, but will take them in and try to get them a home somewhere else before they get older if she already has 10.  This is because, again in Shone there is literally nowhere else for abandoned infants, so to turn them away would be a death sentence.

Here’s where things get interesting.  As I am standing in this construction site listening to the vision for the orphanage, a number pops into my head.  10,000 to be precise.  I get the idea somehow that I am going to give this women $10,000 to help with this project.  Earlier she had told us that in order to complete the building they will need about $21,000, the number I had in mind would get them about half way.  So I start to calculate in my head how long it would take me to be able to give $10,000 out of my own pocket.  4 months?  Maybe if I change some of my personal budget around maybe 3?

As I am doing this quick math another thought pops into my head.  There is nothing in me that believes this thought could have come from me, because it goes against all my sensibilities and desires, firmly removing me from my comfort zone.  The thought is essentially that even though I am going to get $10,000 dollars together for this project, I am only personally responsible for $5,000.  The other $5,000 I will have to raise in a different way somehow.

This may not seem like a big deal to you.  And thinking about it more, it probably isn’t.  But this is the kind of thing that scares me a little.  In fact, I fought with myself about telling anyone about this.  What if I fail in the second part?  I mean I can get $10,000 together myself, no one would have to know about the challenge to raise the money outside of myself.  But in the end I really believe that if I am trustworthy with this little amount, God will be trustworthy with his end.  Maybe I can even learn something in the process.  I really have no idea how to raise this money, so this blog post is a first attempt.  By putting this out there it’s like I just leaned back passed the point of no return for that “trust fall” ice-breaker thing.

If you are one of my atheist readers judging from what I have seen on Twitter, I know you guys have big hearts for the poor of Africa, and for children who have been inexplicably dealt impossible hands in life.  Believe me when I tell you the vision for this orphanage in Shone, Ethiopia is amazing and is desperately needed in the area.   Please consider donating to the Shone project.  You can contribute at www.onechildcampaign.com.  All of the money goes to the project if you designate it “For Shone Building Project” in the notes.

For my Christian brothers and sisters I will tell you that when atheists argue that religion can sometimes be very corrupt they are quite correct.  I think of slick speaking, sharp dressing, mega church pastors or the extreme opulence of the Vatican.   But I think that those same atheists would agree with James 1:27.  James, the brother of Jesus teaches in this verse what God considers to be pure and undefiled religion:  “to visit orphans and widows in their affliction”.  I cannot think of a better goal to prayerfully consider helping accomplish.  This is what religion is supposed to be: helping those who are helpless, standing with those who are afflicted.  Some think that the fact that these suffer proves that there is no God.  I don’t agree with that view at all.  Even so I think we can all agree that the cause for the orphans in Ethiopia is a good one.  It is one worth supporting.  It is one that all human beings should know about, that we might help if we can.

Please consider giving any amount to help build this orphanage for the children of Shone.  www.onechildcampaign.com  Designate the donation “For Shone Building Project” and they will get the money to Ethiopia immediately.