I suppose the brightest way is not to dive right into the deep end, but here goes. Homosexuality is in the news in a big way these days, with four stories currently playing – The infamous Newsweek article touting the Bible as the champion of homosexual marriage, Rick Warren giving the inaugural invocation, the California marriage initiative and picketing the First Baptist Church, Dallas.
I have read the Newsweek article, I haven't heard the sermons. But it doesn't matter, I am not writing a point-by-point refutation or support of either position. Rather, I just want to share the evangelical, and I believe Biblical, position on the issue.
Even the Newsweek article was clear that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, labeling it as a sin and a sexual perversion in both the Old and New Testaments. Arguments otherwise break down into two general categories.
First is biological – I was born that way. The problem with that argument is that there is not a shred of real scientific evidence to support it. As a child abuse investigator I spent a fair amount of time studying the subject.
Generally speaking, there are three or four routes, slightly different for each gender, that a person takes to reach the point of proclaiming their homosexuality, at which time they typically say they have suddenly realized that's what they were all along. I don't know of any other physical trait that we discover in that fashion.
The second argument is cultural. Homosexuality is acceptable in some cultures, so it must not be bad. That argument, too, is weak. You could as easily say that homosexuality is unacceptable in some cultures, so it must be bad. And there are a number of behaviors our culture thinks of as bad, or even evil, that have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures.
Further, trick readings of the Bible don't add up. For instance, the Bible does speak of homosexuality only between men. Can this seriously be seen as supporting, or even permitting, homosexual activity between women? Not by any serious student of the Bible. Such interpretations are an attempt to change the Bible to bring God to men – while the Bible's main emphasis is to bring men to God. When there is a difference between God and men it is always man who must change and never God.
Is homosexuality worse than any other sin? On its face, no. Sin is sin, and all of it is displeasing to God. However, the involvement of other people does compound sin, by adding other sins to the original.
If I overeat, say, well that is a sin (and I certainly don't mean to make light of it). But it does not directly involve anyone else. On the other hand, take murder, theft or rape, each of which has a victim. These are sins against God and sins against the other person, which piles sin upon sin.
But worse than that is enticing another person to sin. Physical sins against another harm them physically or socially. Enticing another person to sin harms them spiritually. There is where sexual sins are more to be condemned than other sin. That applies not only to homosexual acts, but to adultery (sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse) and fornication (sex by any person with someone they're not married to).
The Bible is very specific that helping or encouraging another person to sin compounds the original sin. And it is impossible to be physically involved in a sexual sin of any kind without encouraging a sinful act on the part of at least one other person.
Next week: The Christian Response.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Romans 1:27, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians 6:9
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Salvation
Hand in hand with the evangelical belief about the Bible is the evangelical belief about salvation. It is impossible to understand evangelicals without knowing the plan of salvation as described in the Bible.
Man was, like everything else, created by God. But man was the crown of creation, made to be God's own companion. Made to be like God, not in his power but in his eternal spiritual existence and in his ability to choose good or evil. Of all God's creation, only man has those two qualities. Man was made to worship and serve God.
Instead, man sinned -- that is, man did that which is displeasing to God and outside of God's commands. First Adam and Eve, but in our own time every one of us. The penalty for sin is death, spiritual and physical.
Physical death is not instant, but it is certain. After physical death follows spiritual death, which is eternal separation from God. Understand, death in this sense does not mean that life ceases, it means that it is lived eternally in hell, apart from God.
Hell is a real place. A place of punishment designed for those who sin. Since we are all guilty of sin, we all deserve hell. But in His mercy God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to earth to live as a man. Jesus did not sin, therefore did not deserve death. But He died anyway, thus paying for our sins.
In concept this is the same as if I got a speeding ticket and you paid it for me out of the goodness of your heart. There was a debt to be paid and Jesus paid it, therefore it is no longer owed.
However, I could refuse your payment. If I did that, I would have to pay the penalty myself, either coming up with the money for the fine or serving a period of time in jail. Thus your gift, however well meant, comes to naught.
Just so, you can refuse God's gift, but that means that you must pay the price yourself. Or you can accept the gift, repent of your sin and turn your life over to God, following His will. In that case, while you still eventually experience physical death, you never have to experience spiritual death. Instead you spend eternity with God in heaven.
Understand, you cannot earn salvation. At the very least that would require you live a perfect life, something none of us can do. The only way to be saved is to accept the gift from God. The only other choice is to pay that fine for yourself -- and that is too horrible to contemplate.
The lone exception is for those who are too young or too feeble minded to understand what God and salvation is all about. For those who die in that condition the term many use is safe, which means that they have all the benefits of salvation without having actually accepted that gift from God, but only because they were unable to do so.
I have seen television interviewers become very agitated with evangelical Christians for this position. Please understand, this is what we believe, not what we wish. We have no more say in this matter than we do about the laws of gravity. We believe if we jump off the Empire State Building we will fall to our deaths. We believe that if we do not accept Jesus, on His terms, we will suffer spiritual death.
We can wish people could fly, or that God would spare the "good guys" who didn't follow His plan of salvation all we want to, but that won't change either thing. In believing the Bible is true, which we do, we must follow what it says or act in a way we believe is sinful and against God. Castigating us for that is shooting the messenger.
Does this make us "elitist," as some have asserted? Not at all, and for two reasons. First, we understand and accept the fact that we are no more deserving of salvation than anyone else. We were, and are, sinners ourselves. It is only by God's grace that we are not headed for the same eternity we warn others of.
Second, God's gift is open to anyone who will accept it. I don't see how anything could be more egalitarian than that. This is not a matter of politics, policy, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, wealth, education, denomination or even religion. It is simply a matter of following the steps outlined in the Bible. Some of these things may change once you accept God's gift and learn more of His will, but if that is the case, those are changes you will desire once you understand they are God's will for your life. The requirements for salvation are inflexible, but they are also simple, finite and available.
Not only is it possible for anyone to be saved, but God, and evangelical Christians, want everyone to be saved. Indeed, the term evangelical is a name we gave ourselves and is based upon our dedication, as a group, to providing for every person on earth the information that will help them understand how to be saved. We don't want to be exclusive or elite, we only want to do that which is right according to God's word.
We would be more deserving of disdain if we failed to say forthrightly what we believe. Not to take this stance is akin to allowing a child who does not know better to walk off the Empire State Building because we don't want to make him, or his parents, angry. What a foolish and mean thing to do, for even if that child does not know he is in danger, or lacks the judgment to appreciate his danger, we do know.
In the same way, by telling others who are unaware of their danger or fail to appreciate the seriousness of that danger, of Christ's only plan of salvation, we offer them the opportunity to avoid that judgment which will come to them upon their physical death if they do not accept Christ and His gift. We believe -- I believe -- that is the single kindest thing we can do for any person.
Genesis 1-2, Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Romans 3:23, 5:12, John 3:16, 14:6
Man was, like everything else, created by God. But man was the crown of creation, made to be God's own companion. Made to be like God, not in his power but in his eternal spiritual existence and in his ability to choose good or evil. Of all God's creation, only man has those two qualities. Man was made to worship and serve God.
Instead, man sinned -- that is, man did that which is displeasing to God and outside of God's commands. First Adam and Eve, but in our own time every one of us. The penalty for sin is death, spiritual and physical.
Physical death is not instant, but it is certain. After physical death follows spiritual death, which is eternal separation from God. Understand, death in this sense does not mean that life ceases, it means that it is lived eternally in hell, apart from God.
Hell is a real place. A place of punishment designed for those who sin. Since we are all guilty of sin, we all deserve hell. But in His mercy God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to earth to live as a man. Jesus did not sin, therefore did not deserve death. But He died anyway, thus paying for our sins.
In concept this is the same as if I got a speeding ticket and you paid it for me out of the goodness of your heart. There was a debt to be paid and Jesus paid it, therefore it is no longer owed.
However, I could refuse your payment. If I did that, I would have to pay the penalty myself, either coming up with the money for the fine or serving a period of time in jail. Thus your gift, however well meant, comes to naught.
Just so, you can refuse God's gift, but that means that you must pay the price yourself. Or you can accept the gift, repent of your sin and turn your life over to God, following His will. In that case, while you still eventually experience physical death, you never have to experience spiritual death. Instead you spend eternity with God in heaven.
Understand, you cannot earn salvation. At the very least that would require you live a perfect life, something none of us can do. The only way to be saved is to accept the gift from God. The only other choice is to pay that fine for yourself -- and that is too horrible to contemplate.
The lone exception is for those who are too young or too feeble minded to understand what God and salvation is all about. For those who die in that condition the term many use is safe, which means that they have all the benefits of salvation without having actually accepted that gift from God, but only because they were unable to do so.
I have seen television interviewers become very agitated with evangelical Christians for this position. Please understand, this is what we believe, not what we wish. We have no more say in this matter than we do about the laws of gravity. We believe if we jump off the Empire State Building we will fall to our deaths. We believe that if we do not accept Jesus, on His terms, we will suffer spiritual death.
We can wish people could fly, or that God would spare the "good guys" who didn't follow His plan of salvation all we want to, but that won't change either thing. In believing the Bible is true, which we do, we must follow what it says or act in a way we believe is sinful and against God. Castigating us for that is shooting the messenger.
Does this make us "elitist," as some have asserted? Not at all, and for two reasons. First, we understand and accept the fact that we are no more deserving of salvation than anyone else. We were, and are, sinners ourselves. It is only by God's grace that we are not headed for the same eternity we warn others of.
Second, God's gift is open to anyone who will accept it. I don't see how anything could be more egalitarian than that. This is not a matter of politics, policy, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, wealth, education, denomination or even religion. It is simply a matter of following the steps outlined in the Bible. Some of these things may change once you accept God's gift and learn more of His will, but if that is the case, those are changes you will desire once you understand they are God's will for your life. The requirements for salvation are inflexible, but they are also simple, finite and available.
Not only is it possible for anyone to be saved, but God, and evangelical Christians, want everyone to be saved. Indeed, the term evangelical is a name we gave ourselves and is based upon our dedication, as a group, to providing for every person on earth the information that will help them understand how to be saved. We don't want to be exclusive or elite, we only want to do that which is right according to God's word.
We would be more deserving of disdain if we failed to say forthrightly what we believe. Not to take this stance is akin to allowing a child who does not know better to walk off the Empire State Building because we don't want to make him, or his parents, angry. What a foolish and mean thing to do, for even if that child does not know he is in danger, or lacks the judgment to appreciate his danger, we do know.
In the same way, by telling others who are unaware of their danger or fail to appreciate the seriousness of that danger, of Christ's only plan of salvation, we offer them the opportunity to avoid that judgment which will come to them upon their physical death if they do not accept Christ and His gift. We believe -- I believe -- that is the single kindest thing we can do for any person.
Genesis 1-2, Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Romans 3:23, 5:12, John 3:16, 14:6
The Bible
Since this blog is based on the Bible and the evangelical understanding of that book, I need to make it clear exactly what I mean, and what I am referring to, when I speak of the Bible.
First, we don't actually have the Bible anymore. The Bible was what was originally written. I understand there are some thumbnail sized pieces of Paul's letters extant, but that is all.
What's more, we don't even have copies of the Bible.
What do we have? We have translations of copies. The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. Those documents which make up the Bible were copied by hand, one at a time, for centuries before mass printing was possible.
It is those copies, or printed versions of them, from which printed translations into other languages were made. Bibles are subject to the same vagaries of translation as any other document.
This brings up two questions. What do I believe about the original? Is what we have any good?
I believe the Bible, as originally written, is the inspired, infallible word of God, completely truthful and relevant for every situation and circumstance and just as real and important today and for the future as at any point in history. I believe every single decision we make should be, in some measure, weighed against it. For instance, while the Bible doesn't tell us directly what we should eat for supper, it does speak to the need for eating in a healthy manner.
I believe the Bible is the sole source of faith and practice. Other writings or teachers may help us understand it better, but no person or writing shares its authority and the worth of all other religious teaching and literature is based strictly upon how truly it conforms to the Bible, itself.
As to the worth of our translations, they are as good as their scholarship. One should take some care in choosing a translation (I use the New American Standard), but if a well translated version is chosen it has all the value of the original.
How can that be?
No book in history has been as studied and researched as the Bible. Scholars have gone to almost impossible lengths to confirm its accuracy and root out such small errors as have crept in. Thus it is pretty much impossible to believe that any well researched modern translation contains, and fails to point out, those small errors.
Can I prove the Bible is true or correct? No. There is no need for that with those who believe it and it is impossible to do with those who reject it. Some parts of it are easily verifiable. Some parts won't be verified until the end of time. In this blog I will not attempt to prove the Bible. The Bible is, in its essence, a book of faith, and it must be accepted on that basis. Evangelical Christianity does just that, and for the purpose of this blog that will suffice.
Romans 15:4, II Timothy 3:14-17, II Peter 1:20-21
First, we don't actually have the Bible anymore. The Bible was what was originally written. I understand there are some thumbnail sized pieces of Paul's letters extant, but that is all.
What's more, we don't even have copies of the Bible.
What do we have? We have translations of copies. The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. Those documents which make up the Bible were copied by hand, one at a time, for centuries before mass printing was possible.
It is those copies, or printed versions of them, from which printed translations into other languages were made. Bibles are subject to the same vagaries of translation as any other document.
This brings up two questions. What do I believe about the original? Is what we have any good?
I believe the Bible, as originally written, is the inspired, infallible word of God, completely truthful and relevant for every situation and circumstance and just as real and important today and for the future as at any point in history. I believe every single decision we make should be, in some measure, weighed against it. For instance, while the Bible doesn't tell us directly what we should eat for supper, it does speak to the need for eating in a healthy manner.
I believe the Bible is the sole source of faith and practice. Other writings or teachers may help us understand it better, but no person or writing shares its authority and the worth of all other religious teaching and literature is based strictly upon how truly it conforms to the Bible, itself.
As to the worth of our translations, they are as good as their scholarship. One should take some care in choosing a translation (I use the New American Standard), but if a well translated version is chosen it has all the value of the original.
How can that be?
No book in history has been as studied and researched as the Bible. Scholars have gone to almost impossible lengths to confirm its accuracy and root out such small errors as have crept in. Thus it is pretty much impossible to believe that any well researched modern translation contains, and fails to point out, those small errors.
Can I prove the Bible is true or correct? No. There is no need for that with those who believe it and it is impossible to do with those who reject it. Some parts of it are easily verifiable. Some parts won't be verified until the end of time. In this blog I will not attempt to prove the Bible. The Bible is, in its essence, a book of faith, and it must be accepted on that basis. Evangelical Christianity does just that, and for the purpose of this blog that will suffice.
Romans 15:4, II Timothy 3:14-17, II Peter 1:20-21
Parameters
When I read a new blog, or anything else, there are certain questions I usually ask myself, and I suspect you ask yourself something similar. In this first post I'd like to address some of those questions and, hopefully, give everyone a clear understanding of what I am doing, why I am doing it and how I hope to accomplish my purpose in it.
1) What is this blog about?
The Faithful Life is, in simplest terms, about relating every aspect of life to God as the reveals himself in His word, the Bible. Politics, religion, work, family -- no subject is taboo and you are likely to see anything here you might see in tomorrow's headlines, and possibly some things you won't.
2) What is the purpose of this blog?
The purpose of this blog is twofold. First, I hope it will help remind Evangelical Christians, including me, of what God expects from us in our daily lives. Second, I would like to help interpret the evangelical understanding and point of view to the non-evangelical world.
This blog is not, primarily, an evangelistic tool, though I suppose anything that expounds a point of view is, to some degree, evangelistic for its cause. Certainly, I would be thrilled to see anyone come to know and understand Christ from these pages, as I would from any other endeavor, and I make no secret of, or apology for, that. But, primarily, it is to help interpret the Bible in its role as a guide for our daily lives.
The blog is also not a doctrinal or belief statement, as such. For a clear and well written statement of my basic beliefs you can see the booklet The Baptist Faith and Message. If you are interested, you can find a copy at www.sbc.net/bfm.
I find doctrinal studies important and fascinating, but I will endeavor to keep this blog on message, which is to relate the Bible to life. That does involve our beliefs, of course, but will not be a treatise of them. The only exception is that my next two posts will address two key evangelical (and I believe Biblical) beliefs, the understanding of which are key to understanding the views of evangelicals in general.
3) Does that mean we won't address controversial questions?
Absolutely and emphatically not! Indeed, much of what is said in this blog is likely to be controversial. It is not my goal to be so, but one could hardly address the questions of this, or any other, day without it. I do not intent to use controversy as a reason to misbehave, but I will not shy away from the hard issues.
3) What are the parameters of this blog?
The single parameter for this blog is the Bible. That is, the sixty-six non-apocryphal books generally accepted as the Bible by the orthodox Christian community. The further explanation of this question will be the subject of my second blog.
4) What is the point of view of this blog?
The point of view is that the Bible is the only authoritative source of knowledge of God or His will and that, as such, it is completely true and wholly relevant to any issue, circumstance or position of any time in history, including the present and the future. Again, this will be addressed in my second blog.
5) What are my qualifications to write this blog?
Certainly not that I am perfect (even good) or have any special dispensation or ability. My only qualifications, such as they are, are completely transparent -- I have lived long enough to have a reasonably good education, raise a family, lead and follow others in various endeavors, read the Bible and hear what others say on that subject, hold most available positions in a church, work at a job and generally have some experience in life and give some thought to how life should be lived and to have failed in the proper living of it on occasion.
6) Why should you believe me or read what I say?
What I say is important only so far as it helps correctly understand what God says in His word. I invite you to read the Bible (if you have not already) and judge my words against that. I also invite you to comment on what you read. Those comments are the best way I know to keep my nose to the grindstone, so far as not allowing my personal feelings and prejudices to interfere with a fair reading and explanation of God's word.
7) What if I don't believe the Bible (or some part of the Bible) is true?
Then we won't have much in common and your comments may not sway me very much. The only argument to which I am consistently susceptible is one made from the Bible -- something that is true for most evangelical Christians. Still, I hope you will read my blog, and even comment on it. It is written for you, too, in hopes of helping correct what the world often misconstrues about evangelical Christianity. In the end, even if we don't agree, we may understand one another better.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible I have this one promise I can make you. Never, in this blog, will you find anything intended to be demeaning, hurtful or rude to those with whom I disagree. Open disagreement, yes, but mean-spirited, no. After all, if I were to spend my time castigating sinners, I could take up all of it dealing with my own shortcomings.
8) How often and how long?
I have a couple postings that I need to get out to set up what I want to do, and I will be trying to get those published quickly. After that, my initial goal is to publish once a week, on Wednesday. As for length, initially my goal is to keep it around five hundred words, which is about one letter sized page, type-written, single spaced. If I find any of that does not work for some reason, I will post the changes in by blog.
9) How do I reference what I write?
At the end of each blog you will find a list of Biblical passages that relate to what I have written. Feel free to check them, or any other passages you feel or relevant, and to comment on what you read.
1) What is this blog about?
The Faithful Life is, in simplest terms, about relating every aspect of life to God as the reveals himself in His word, the Bible. Politics, religion, work, family -- no subject is taboo and you are likely to see anything here you might see in tomorrow's headlines, and possibly some things you won't.
2) What is the purpose of this blog?
The purpose of this blog is twofold. First, I hope it will help remind Evangelical Christians, including me, of what God expects from us in our daily lives. Second, I would like to help interpret the evangelical understanding and point of view to the non-evangelical world.
This blog is not, primarily, an evangelistic tool, though I suppose anything that expounds a point of view is, to some degree, evangelistic for its cause. Certainly, I would be thrilled to see anyone come to know and understand Christ from these pages, as I would from any other endeavor, and I make no secret of, or apology for, that. But, primarily, it is to help interpret the Bible in its role as a guide for our daily lives.
The blog is also not a doctrinal or belief statement, as such. For a clear and well written statement of my basic beliefs you can see the booklet The Baptist Faith and Message. If you are interested, you can find a copy at www.sbc.net/bfm.
I find doctrinal studies important and fascinating, but I will endeavor to keep this blog on message, which is to relate the Bible to life. That does involve our beliefs, of course, but will not be a treatise of them. The only exception is that my next two posts will address two key evangelical (and I believe Biblical) beliefs, the understanding of which are key to understanding the views of evangelicals in general.
3) Does that mean we won't address controversial questions?
Absolutely and emphatically not! Indeed, much of what is said in this blog is likely to be controversial. It is not my goal to be so, but one could hardly address the questions of this, or any other, day without it. I do not intent to use controversy as a reason to misbehave, but I will not shy away from the hard issues.
3) What are the parameters of this blog?
The single parameter for this blog is the Bible. That is, the sixty-six non-apocryphal books generally accepted as the Bible by the orthodox Christian community. The further explanation of this question will be the subject of my second blog.
4) What is the point of view of this blog?
The point of view is that the Bible is the only authoritative source of knowledge of God or His will and that, as such, it is completely true and wholly relevant to any issue, circumstance or position of any time in history, including the present and the future. Again, this will be addressed in my second blog.
5) What are my qualifications to write this blog?
Certainly not that I am perfect (even good) or have any special dispensation or ability. My only qualifications, such as they are, are completely transparent -- I have lived long enough to have a reasonably good education, raise a family, lead and follow others in various endeavors, read the Bible and hear what others say on that subject, hold most available positions in a church, work at a job and generally have some experience in life and give some thought to how life should be lived and to have failed in the proper living of it on occasion.
6) Why should you believe me or read what I say?
What I say is important only so far as it helps correctly understand what God says in His word. I invite you to read the Bible (if you have not already) and judge my words against that. I also invite you to comment on what you read. Those comments are the best way I know to keep my nose to the grindstone, so far as not allowing my personal feelings and prejudices to interfere with a fair reading and explanation of God's word.
7) What if I don't believe the Bible (or some part of the Bible) is true?
Then we won't have much in common and your comments may not sway me very much. The only argument to which I am consistently susceptible is one made from the Bible -- something that is true for most evangelical Christians. Still, I hope you will read my blog, and even comment on it. It is written for you, too, in hopes of helping correct what the world often misconstrues about evangelical Christianity. In the end, even if we don't agree, we may understand one another better.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible I have this one promise I can make you. Never, in this blog, will you find anything intended to be demeaning, hurtful or rude to those with whom I disagree. Open disagreement, yes, but mean-spirited, no. After all, if I were to spend my time castigating sinners, I could take up all of it dealing with my own shortcomings.
8) How often and how long?
I have a couple postings that I need to get out to set up what I want to do, and I will be trying to get those published quickly. After that, my initial goal is to publish once a week, on Wednesday. As for length, initially my goal is to keep it around five hundred words, which is about one letter sized page, type-written, single spaced. If I find any of that does not work for some reason, I will post the changes in by blog.
9) How do I reference what I write?
At the end of each blog you will find a list of Biblical passages that relate to what I have written. Feel free to check them, or any other passages you feel or relevant, and to comment on what you read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)