I have made a change from unbelief to belief. From a skeptic to a student. From a denier, to a follower of Christ. I have been asked many times, what my motive is for doing this. After all, I can't really believe Christianity right? I do. Here is my reason why:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was interacting with an outspoken atheist on Twitter the other day when he made a claim I wasn’t expecting. He said, “God might exist. I am totally open to the possibility.”
“Really?”, I said. “I find this weird considering you just spent 50 tweets or so telling me God definitely did not exist.”
He responded, “Oh God could exist. But I know for a fact the God of the Bible does not. He is demonstrably false.” At this point I am really intrigued to hear what he has to say because most atheists are too cowardly to go this far with a claim against God. I asked him to give me his strongest piece of evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. Here is his tweet verbatim, “The failure of prayer would be one. Its been properly tested, it never works. YHWHs existence is predicated on the Bible being true.”
In his own words this is the best evidence that he can think of for the Bible not being true, and thus, God not existing. Immediately looking at this tweet there is a huge problem. What is the criteria that can be used to know if a prayer fails or succeeds? You see, Christians believe that God is sovereign. In other words, we believe that what God wants to do, He will do. This is why we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.” So I asked him, “When you say it never works, what do you mean by ‘works’. In order to know if a prayer ‘worked’ or not, wouldn’t you have to know the will of God?”
He responded, “If God’s will determines the outcome of prayer it definitely doesn’t work. He would do it anyway! The Bible says it works. It doesn’t. John 14:14 says it all.”
John 14:14 records Jesus as saying the following: If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
The meaning of this verse hinges on the phrase, “in my name”. Are these just magic words that Jesus is claiming will get you whatever you ask for? I pray for a million dollars, in Jesus name I pray. Ala-Kazaam! That’s one way to look at it. But that would mean Jesus is advocating sorcery.
No. “In my name”, is not a magic phrase. To pray “in Jesus’ name”, means that you are praying according to his will, or praying for the things that He would pray for. How do I know this? Because Jesus says other things about prayer. For example, the prayer I quoted above about “thy will be done,” is actually something else Jesus said when he was teaching the disciples, and us, how we are to pray. (Matthew 6, The Lord’s Prayer) There is no scripture that obligates God to answer prayer according to our will. That is bad theology. God is only obligated to answer prayer according to His own will. We are required to pray that his will be done. Jesus gave us another example of this while praying in Gethsemane, desiring to not have to go to the cross, but desiring even more that God’s perfect will be done:
My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. – Matthew 26:39
God does not give us everything that we ask for in prayer. As far as I am concerned, praise God that he does not. I think of some of my prayers back when I was in junior high school...even some now. If I would’ve got what I asked for...lets just say it would not have been the best thing for me. Remember friends, when it comes to people, God is not primarily interested in their temporary personal comfort here on earth. He is primarily interested in the eternal condition of their souls.
So what then is point of prayer? Prayer is an act of worship. Talking with God is a way of showing reverence to the One who had the idea to create you. It is an absolutely necessary way for us to cultivate the only relationship that has the power to sustain through eternity.
God is not a vending machine. Prayer is not equivalent to shoving a few quarters in to make your selection. God’s will, will be done on Earth as surely as the sun rises in the east. Still, the Bible makes it clear that God wants you to talk with him.
We get to talk to the God who created the entire Universe. We get to participate in His plan through prayer. Can you think of a more special thing than that?
Theology Matters is a new series. Theology is the study of God and what he is
like. It is important to understand
correct theology because when we have false ideas about God, we will have false
expectations about our own lives. When
we have false expectations about our lives, and things don’t happen the way we
falsely expect them to, we have a crisis.
When we have a crisis, we either start doubting God’s truthfulness, or
doubting that God even exists at all. I
hope that this series will help you identify bad theology; ultimately to help
you get to know what the God who is there is really like.
We have all had
something bad happen to us. Some of us
have had terrible things happen in our lives, others not so terrible, but we
all have experienced some kind of crisis at some point in our lives. When we encounter a crisis often times people
who mean well will tell us, “It’s going to be okay, because no matter how bad
it may seem, God will never give you more than you can handle.” Is this really true?
I really don’t
think this is true at all. Throughout
the Bible I see stories of people needing to be saved, because the predicament
they found themselves in was WAY too much for them to handle. So where does this incorrect cliché come
from? The closest thing I could find in
the Bible about this is 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13:
God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your
ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that
you may be able to endure it.
Clearly this verse has to do with
temptation to sin, and not with difficult circumstances in life.
You say – What’s the big deal? So it’s not in the Bible, it can be a helpful
truth to learn. It can still be a
comfort to people who are in pain.
The big deal is that it is not true,
and it teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible teaches. The Bible’s message from beginning to end is
that people are absolutely and utterly helpless in terms of living a successful
life. Especially if you consider a
successful life in the same way that the Bible does.
Have you ever considered the famous
Bible line, “The Lord is my shepherd…”?
If the Lord is our shepherd, that makes us sheep. I don’t know if you have ever met a sheep but
here are some of their attributes: Sheep are helpless. Sheep are not very smart. Sheep require protection. Sheep get eaten. This is not a flattering description of how
“self-sufficient” God considers us to be and it doesn’t pretend to be. It is a realistic one.
Also, seriously take some time to
think about people who are in intense suffering. Do you really think telling them, “God will
never give you more than you can handle.” is helpful at all? It isn’t true. People are overcome by circumstances all the
time. Why would lying to someone
provide comfort? On the contrary, when
you use such poor theology when trying to comfort someone it is damaging. What if things don’t get better? What if I am completely overwhelmed? What then?
God DOES promise that he will be with
you through any kind of trouble: no matter how bleak, no matter how hopeless
things seem. He promises that he is
still in control of what happens to you.
He also GUARANTEES that you will have trouble:
I have said these things to you, that in me you may
have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have
overcome the world.” -John 16:33
Notice who has
overcome the world: He, not you. Notice how he tells us to have peace: in Him, not in ourselves. Friends, the bottom line is that if you rely
on yourself and if you think that you can get through the difficult things on
your own, and that you will overcome…no matter how many times you do, in the
end, you will be disappointed. Any
theology that has you rely on yourself rather than God is harmful and quite
incorrect.
Another famous
section of scripture is, “I can do all things through him who strengthens
me.” That’s true enough. But don’t forget the verse that comes right
before it, where it describes the kinds of things he means; both the good, and
the bad, “I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and
need.” (Philippians 4:12-13)
God will allow you
to face things in this life that you cannot handle. But he will never allow you to face things
that He cannot handle. This might seem
like I am splitting hairs, but I ask you to meditate on this idea. It makes all the difference in the world.
Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. –Matthew 24:40-42 ESV
What is this famous section of Scripture about? The rapture right? This describes the end times when God will remove the Christians from the world and bring them to heaven. I’ve heard this taught many times. No doubt you have too. What I am about to say may shock you, because it certainly shocked me when I heard it. This verse is absolutely NOT about the rapture.
Greg Koukl, the founder of the Stand to Reason apologetics ministry has a rule that I think we should all follow: “Never read a Bible verse.” What he means is that unless you read a section of verses in context you run the risk of seriously misinterpreting a passage. That is what is going on here. Lets read the larger context. Here are the verses right before the section I quoted above.
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. –Matthew 24:37-39 ESV
So who is taken and swept away? The wicked right? That doesn’t sound like the rapture I know about.
Check this out, another parable of Jesus from Matthew.
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weedsamong the wheat and went away.So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn –Matthew 13:24-30 ESV
This parable is about the end times. (Not my interpretation, Jesus says that it is) What is gathered first? The weeds. What are the weeds? Jesus explains later in the chapter that the weeds are the “sons of the evil one”. That sure doesn’t sound like the rapture of the church to me.
Let me make it clear that I absolutely believe in the rapture. But the verse I quoted in the beginning of this post has nothing to do with it. So why did I used to think it did? Why have we so often heard this verse preached, like it did? There's a good chance that this realization bothers you, because I know for a fact it bothered me. Why did I not notice this before? It is right there, perfectly clear.
I am not trying to cause you to be suspicious of your pastor. I am trying to cause you to recognize the need to study the Word of God for yourself. When I was shown all this a few weeks back, it really convicted me. How much about what I know of the Bible is something I just believe because I was told? Lets all commit to study the Bible for ourselves. If we do not, how will we know true teaching versus false teaching? Lets not be spiritually lazy anymore. It is not only your pastor’s job to make sure you know the truth about God. It’s also your job. Lets be like the Bereans who didn’t even take Paul’s word for it. Is your pastor more trustworthy than Paul?
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. –Acts 17:11 NIV
“If it were God’s word it can, and should
be taken literally right?Interpretation
= Excuses”
I’ve seen this statement uttered a number of
times recently, by a variety of characters.I’ve seen atheists use this when trying to promote their interpretation of
a seemingly embarrassing section of scripture.I’ve also seen self-identified believers say this to promote faulty
theology using the so-called, “plain meaning” of a text. Is it really true that everything in the
Bible should be taken literally, as the atheist claims?
I actually would like to answer this
question by sympathizing with the atheist skepticism here.There are a great deal of difficult passages
in the Bible that Christians are far too quick to dismiss as not being
literal.This can lead to suspicion on
the part of the skeptic.If the Bible
can’t be taken literally, then can’t it literally
mean whatever you want it to mean?If so, then it is literally meaningless.
I think the correct view to take here is in
agreement with the atheist.The Bible
should be taken literally in what it
teaches.However, this does not mean
that we must ignore obvious figurative language that is contained in the
scriptures.Not every word in the Bible is meant to be taken
literally, but every teaching is.The Bible is written in various types of a
literary styles and this effects what a “literal teaching” of the Bible means.Here are some examples:
In
Psalms 94:1, the psalmist writes of God that, “under
his wings you will find refuge.” Taken literally this implies that God has “wings”
and we will find refuge under them.But
clearly the Psalms are poems.Poems by definition
are full of figurative language.God
does not have wings.Yet there is absolutely
a literal truth here.There is something
about God and our relationship with him, that is like a bird who covers her
chicks with her wings for protection.Our job is to interpret what literal
truth this figurative language
tries to convey.
How about something a little more difficult?In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist speaking
of Jesus says,
“I
baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is
mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
I have heard people teach that the “fire”
John says Jesus will baptize with is figurative for some kind of cleansing
power that his baptism will have, and it may be so.But do we have good reason to believe this?
As it happens, the word “fire” is used
in both the preceding and following verses, both times referring to literal
fire as part of a larger figure of speech.
10“Even now the axe is laid to the root
of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for
repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I
am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his
hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
It seems to me that the “fire” in verse
11 is possibly a figure.But the idea
that it represents some kind of “cleansing power” of the baptism is foreign to
the text, and I think is an inappropriate attempt to soften what John is
saying.The “fire” in both verse 10 and
12 is referring to a destruction of something undesirable; fruitless trees in
verse 10, and chaff in verse 12.We have
every reason to believe that the “fire” that Jesus will baptize with according
to verse 11 is a similar kind of destruction of something undesirable.Verse 11 talks about Jesus coming to the
world to baptize.Some will be baptized
with the Holy Spirit.(Believers) Others
will be baptized with fire that may very well be literal. (Un-believers)
As you can see, coming to this
conclusion did require a degree of interpretation.This is called hermeneutics.But does this process of interpretation mean
that you do not assume a literal meaning?No.We should assume a literal
meaning unless there is good reason not to.As someone who reads the Bible, whether a believer or skeptic, you should
have a hermeneutical approach that is careful not to read into a text that
which is not there.This may mean that
you will have think carefully about how things are worded.This is part of what it is to read an ancient
text.It takes a certain amount of work,
but if literal meaning is to be ascertained, it is necessary.
Atheists tend to read all kinds of
meaning into the Bible that really isn’t there.Especially when it comes to the Old Testament.The best approach to take when encountering this
objection, is to just agree:
Yes the Bible should be taken literally
in what it teaches.But we have to
interpret what it teaches through careful examination.This interpretation cannot be arbitrary and
often times take work.Interpretation is
not “excuses”.It is just an honest approach to
understanding.Sound interpretation is a
critical element of any kind of real knowledge be it scientific, historical or
spiritual.
