My intention is to write about what is current – how it affects evangelical Christians, what we believe about it and why. As I look at the news over the past week that leaves me with pretty much only one subject. Government.
Given the recent election, the first thing I must say is that the Bible commands us to pray for and respect our leaders. It does not matter whether you voted for Obama or not. Government is ordained by God and governmental leaders deserve our respect and support.
That doesn't mean we must accept his point of view. But we should hear him out and cooperate with him where we can, and we should respect him, publically and privately, and pray for God's leadership and blessings upon him. And, yes, I am one who did not vote for him and who disagrees with almost every decision he has made so far. But that does not change my responsibility.
As for government in general, it's not only the right but the duty of evangelical Christians to participate by voting, debating and even running for office, should they feel so led. Jesus and the apostles ministered where government cared little for the common man and was actively hostile to their work. In that respect we are blessed. We have the obligation to use that blessing to make the world a better, more godly, place.
The Bible is clear about obeying the laws of the land. The only time we can violate the law without sin is when it forces us to do something that is a sin. We cannot intervene illegally otherwise – even if it means we lose our lives or the lives of those we love.
That's right, no bombing abortion clinics or gay bars. In fact, the fanatics who do that should hope no evangelical is on their jury.
But that's just the start. If the government wrongly executes you, or your child, you should not use force to prevent it. That sounds tough, but the words and example of our Biblical Fathers is only too clear. That's why I say we are blessed by our government. We have recourse to laws that are generally obeyed. That hasn't been true in all times and places.
One item remains – separation of church and state. The Bible is neutral on that issue. Men served God, or failed to, under theocracies and under governments that did not believe in Jehovah God and tried to destroy those who did. However, separation of church and state, as envisioned by the founding fathers of our nation, meant two things.
First, government doesn't support, financially or otherwise, any particular religion or denomination. Second, following any religion or denomination – or lack thereof – denies no citizen of their rights. The Bible is perfectly compatible with that stance.
On the other hand, the Constitution was never meant to restrict the practice of any religion so long as it didn't interfere with or overtly harm others. A government where Christians cannot pray publicly may be acceptable Biblically, but not legally. Not in America. Modern efforts to squeeze Christians out of government or unduly restrict their right to worship trample just as certainly on the Constitution as they do on the Bible.
If you're not a Christian the latter might not bother you, but the former should. If Christians aren't allowed to speak their mind and practice their beliefs, what makes you think you will be?
Romans 13:6, Colossians 1:16, 4:6, Titus 3:1, Matthew 5:13, 10:28, 22:34, 24:9, Mark 9:49, Luke 11:49, 12:5, 14:4
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Unchanging Bible
It's interesting that those who believe the Bible changes with the current social practices always want it to change in favor of their particular anti-Biblical behavior, even while opposing others who would change it in a different manner. Further, it always seems to change to a more liberal theme.
If the Bible were a document that changed meaning, doesn't it stand to reason it would sometimes become more conservative? If we're going to change it, why couldn't we change it to include segregation, or even support slavery? To make certain laws punishable by death without trial? To give a person who feels they've been wronged the right to simply take what they think is theirs?
Crazy? Of course it is. Yet some people support every one of those ideas. Which brings up an important question.
Who gets to decide what changes are made to the meaning of the Bible, anyway? The Pope? Billy Graham? The President? The political party in power? The Supreme Court? The United Nations? Who?
The fact is, if the Bible changes its viewpoint to satisfy whatever people are doing, it's worthless and unnecessary. The whole effort of the Bible is to draw people closer to God, but the idea of a changing Bible merely makes God more like men. Convenient, but hardly fitting the repeatedly expressed purpose of God's word.
There are those who assert that following the Bible, as written, is worshipping the Bible instead of God. They fail to understand there is no real knowledge of God except what is in the Bible. Thus, to worship God correctly and to follow His will correctly, it's necessary to follow the Bible. Without the Bible as truth we are, as the Bible says, the blind leading the blind.
Anyway, how can something be true yesterday and untrue tomorrow? I mean, we're not talking about new discoveries of Biblical truth, we're talking about discarding or changing parts of it.
We discovered that Earth spins on an axis and revolves around the Sun. We discovered the laws of gravity. But we didn’t change those things – they were true all along. Nor does disbelieving them make them less true.
And please don't bring up the Constitution. It's not a truth, it's an agreement. Any agreement can be changed upon the will of the parties involved.
But if the Bible is not true, then God lied, because He said He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And here's the thing – how many times does someone have to lie to be a liar. They can tell you the truth a hundred times, but if they lie to you once, the trust is broken. So if God changes, He can't be trusted and the whole idea of eternal truth and God's word is a bust.
Some people believe just that, of course. But like those who refuse to believe the Earth spins in its axis, what they believe doesn't change what is.
The Bible is either God's word, or it isn't. It is either true or it's a lie. To accept it as the truth means to accept it as written. To suggest any change has occurred in its meaning, or that some part of it is not now relevant, makes it worthless.
Every person must choose for themselves how they deal with those facts. And every person will be held accountable for how they choose.
I Thessalonians 2:13, II Timothy 3:16, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17
If the Bible were a document that changed meaning, doesn't it stand to reason it would sometimes become more conservative? If we're going to change it, why couldn't we change it to include segregation, or even support slavery? To make certain laws punishable by death without trial? To give a person who feels they've been wronged the right to simply take what they think is theirs?
Crazy? Of course it is. Yet some people support every one of those ideas. Which brings up an important question.
Who gets to decide what changes are made to the meaning of the Bible, anyway? The Pope? Billy Graham? The President? The political party in power? The Supreme Court? The United Nations? Who?
The fact is, if the Bible changes its viewpoint to satisfy whatever people are doing, it's worthless and unnecessary. The whole effort of the Bible is to draw people closer to God, but the idea of a changing Bible merely makes God more like men. Convenient, but hardly fitting the repeatedly expressed purpose of God's word.
There are those who assert that following the Bible, as written, is worshipping the Bible instead of God. They fail to understand there is no real knowledge of God except what is in the Bible. Thus, to worship God correctly and to follow His will correctly, it's necessary to follow the Bible. Without the Bible as truth we are, as the Bible says, the blind leading the blind.
Anyway, how can something be true yesterday and untrue tomorrow? I mean, we're not talking about new discoveries of Biblical truth, we're talking about discarding or changing parts of it.
We discovered that Earth spins on an axis and revolves around the Sun. We discovered the laws of gravity. But we didn’t change those things – they were true all along. Nor does disbelieving them make them less true.
And please don't bring up the Constitution. It's not a truth, it's an agreement. Any agreement can be changed upon the will of the parties involved.
But if the Bible is not true, then God lied, because He said He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And here's the thing – how many times does someone have to lie to be a liar. They can tell you the truth a hundred times, but if they lie to you once, the trust is broken. So if God changes, He can't be trusted and the whole idea of eternal truth and God's word is a bust.
Some people believe just that, of course. But like those who refuse to believe the Earth spins in its axis, what they believe doesn't change what is.
The Bible is either God's word, or it isn't. It is either true or it's a lie. To accept it as the truth means to accept it as written. To suggest any change has occurred in its meaning, or that some part of it is not now relevant, makes it worthless.
Every person must choose for themselves how they deal with those facts. And every person will be held accountable for how they choose.
I Thessalonians 2:13, II Timothy 3:16, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Christian Tolerance
Tolerance is a word that gets tossed around a lot these days. To evangelical Christians, it sometimes seems it gets tossed at us more than it does at anyone else. Typically from folks upset at us for holding positions based on a literal reading and understanding of the Bible.
I looked up tolerance in the American Heritage Dictionary. There were several definitions, but the first one was the one relevant to this issue. "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
As evangelicals, we get labeled as intolerant because we don't agree with others. But nowhere is the word "agree," or any similar word, in the definition of tolerance.
Evangelicals recognize there are points of view other than their own. And they respect the rights of people to take those other points of view. While we may try to persuade people of the Biblical truths, no evangelical wants to coerce them to accept those truths. Freedom of Religion is not merely a political right, it is a Biblical right.
We believe the Bible describes a God of love and forgiveness, else none of us would be free from the threat of eternal damnation. We also see where the Bible describes a God of justice and responsibility who will hold all of us, evangelical or not, accountable for our beliefs and choices. But we neither have nor want that responsibility for ourselves.
We further believe that as a part of God's loving nature, His commandments are given to us not to keep us from enjoying life, but to help us enjoy it more fully and more safely. So while we won't try to make anyone believe as we do, we certainly feel justified, Biblically and politically, in taking part in the governmental process and supporting laws and policies that provide a moral support for society.
On the subject of forgiveness, we believe the Bible teaches that when a person seeks forgiveness and turns from their sin, God forgives them. When they give reasonable evidence they have done so, the church also forgives. On the other hand, when a person engages openly in behavior the Bible describes as sinful – claiming such behavior as acceptable, they can hardly claim they are seeking forgiveness. That situation is compounded if they also demand the church endorse their behavior.
This public acceptance of sin requires a response from the church, lest we compromise our own beliefs and our responsibilities to God, our children and each other.
The particular response varies from church to church, of course. But typically it comes in one or more of three forms – separation from the church, public denouncement of the activity or behavior in question and/or support for laws against the egregious behavior.
None of this is anything we enjoy. We take such action only when there is no choice and only with great reluctance. But we are commanded by God in the Bible to take the stand we do.
You see, it's not just those outside the church whose actions we're afraid of, it's us, too. We, all of us, need structure around us that helps us to live to our best, rather than our worst. One role of religion is to help provide that structure.
So tolerant, yes. We can be, and we want to be, tolerant. But our agreement is reserved for those things with which, to the best of our understanding, the Bible pronounces itself in agreement.
Matthew 19:16-22, Luke 16:19-26, John 8:31-36, II Chronicles 7:13-15, I Corinthians 5
I looked up tolerance in the American Heritage Dictionary. There were several definitions, but the first one was the one relevant to this issue. "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
As evangelicals, we get labeled as intolerant because we don't agree with others. But nowhere is the word "agree," or any similar word, in the definition of tolerance.
Evangelicals recognize there are points of view other than their own. And they respect the rights of people to take those other points of view. While we may try to persuade people of the Biblical truths, no evangelical wants to coerce them to accept those truths. Freedom of Religion is not merely a political right, it is a Biblical right.
We believe the Bible describes a God of love and forgiveness, else none of us would be free from the threat of eternal damnation. We also see where the Bible describes a God of justice and responsibility who will hold all of us, evangelical or not, accountable for our beliefs and choices. But we neither have nor want that responsibility for ourselves.
We further believe that as a part of God's loving nature, His commandments are given to us not to keep us from enjoying life, but to help us enjoy it more fully and more safely. So while we won't try to make anyone believe as we do, we certainly feel justified, Biblically and politically, in taking part in the governmental process and supporting laws and policies that provide a moral support for society.
On the subject of forgiveness, we believe the Bible teaches that when a person seeks forgiveness and turns from their sin, God forgives them. When they give reasonable evidence they have done so, the church also forgives. On the other hand, when a person engages openly in behavior the Bible describes as sinful – claiming such behavior as acceptable, they can hardly claim they are seeking forgiveness. That situation is compounded if they also demand the church endorse their behavior.
This public acceptance of sin requires a response from the church, lest we compromise our own beliefs and our responsibilities to God, our children and each other.
The particular response varies from church to church, of course. But typically it comes in one or more of three forms – separation from the church, public denouncement of the activity or behavior in question and/or support for laws against the egregious behavior.
None of this is anything we enjoy. We take such action only when there is no choice and only with great reluctance. But we are commanded by God in the Bible to take the stand we do.
You see, it's not just those outside the church whose actions we're afraid of, it's us, too. We, all of us, need structure around us that helps us to live to our best, rather than our worst. One role of religion is to help provide that structure.
So tolerant, yes. We can be, and we want to be, tolerant. But our agreement is reserved for those things with which, to the best of our understanding, the Bible pronounces itself in agreement.
Matthew 19:16-22, Luke 16:19-26, John 8:31-36, II Chronicles 7:13-15, I Corinthians 5
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Homosexuality: The Biblical Response
This post is directed primarily to the evangelical Christian community. There are certain issues that tend to set Christians off, such as homosexuality and abortion. But there is a proper way for Christians to respond to sin and the sinner, and we need to keep that in mind.
As part of the writing ministry I have taken on, I have begun what is still a somewhat uncoordinated effort at forum writing. I quickly discovered two things that disturb me. The first is the hostility with which some people view evangelical Christianity. I suppose I am naïve, but I had no idea.
The second thing, which disturbs me even more, is the hostility of some who write from the "Christian" perspective. My heavens, people, have we forgotten that we are sinners, too?
To God, sin is sin and there are no degrees. The only issues that compound sin are when there is a victim, because we sin against others and against God, and when we encourage or entice others to sin – which is always the case with sexual sin. But all sin separates us from God. There are no little and big sins. Jesus made that clear at least three times.
The first time was when he told Peter to forgive those who hurt him seventy times seven. The second was when he challenged the church leaders to cast the first stone. The third was the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are to love the sinner just as much as we hate the sin. And we are to hate the sin in our own lives just as much as – nay, more than – we hate the sin in other lives.
That does not just mean we should refrain from "Gay Bashing," bombing abortion clinics and similar things – it means we should treat homosexuals (and abortion advocates and everyone else) with all the kindness and courtesy we would show toward our pastor and his wife. It means we should not hesitate to work beside, touch, speak to and care about the homosexual person just as much as we would our own children.
We can't condone misbehavior wherever it's found, of course. We seek to remove it from our own lives and I don't believe we should allow those who eagerly and willfully profess themselves as participants in any sinful activity that brings ill repute on the church to be members of the church or to hold positions in the church. I do support laws limiting immoral behavior – including not only homosexual behavior but other sexual behavior outside of marriage.
But the Bible teaches we should support and obey not only the laws we agree with, but all laws, unless they directly force us to participate in behavior we believe is sinful or bar us from behavior we believe is commanded by God. It also teaches we should treat all persons with respect and kindness, remembering we are no better than they are.
After all, do you recall the story of the woman at the well? What if Jesus had said to her that He didn't want to be associated with sinners? Indeed, what if He had said that to you? Or to me?
We certainly don't merit His love.
Romans 3:23, Matthew 18:21-22,22:21 John 8:1-11, Luke 10:29-37, John 3:16, Luke 6:27-37, 41-42, John 4:7-30
As part of the writing ministry I have taken on, I have begun what is still a somewhat uncoordinated effort at forum writing. I quickly discovered two things that disturb me. The first is the hostility with which some people view evangelical Christianity. I suppose I am naïve, but I had no idea.
The second thing, which disturbs me even more, is the hostility of some who write from the "Christian" perspective. My heavens, people, have we forgotten that we are sinners, too?
To God, sin is sin and there are no degrees. The only issues that compound sin are when there is a victim, because we sin against others and against God, and when we encourage or entice others to sin – which is always the case with sexual sin. But all sin separates us from God. There are no little and big sins. Jesus made that clear at least three times.
The first time was when he told Peter to forgive those who hurt him seventy times seven. The second was when he challenged the church leaders to cast the first stone. The third was the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are to love the sinner just as much as we hate the sin. And we are to hate the sin in our own lives just as much as – nay, more than – we hate the sin in other lives.
That does not just mean we should refrain from "Gay Bashing," bombing abortion clinics and similar things – it means we should treat homosexuals (and abortion advocates and everyone else) with all the kindness and courtesy we would show toward our pastor and his wife. It means we should not hesitate to work beside, touch, speak to and care about the homosexual person just as much as we would our own children.
We can't condone misbehavior wherever it's found, of course. We seek to remove it from our own lives and I don't believe we should allow those who eagerly and willfully profess themselves as participants in any sinful activity that brings ill repute on the church to be members of the church or to hold positions in the church. I do support laws limiting immoral behavior – including not only homosexual behavior but other sexual behavior outside of marriage.
But the Bible teaches we should support and obey not only the laws we agree with, but all laws, unless they directly force us to participate in behavior we believe is sinful or bar us from behavior we believe is commanded by God. It also teaches we should treat all persons with respect and kindness, remembering we are no better than they are.
After all, do you recall the story of the woman at the well? What if Jesus had said to her that He didn't want to be associated with sinners? Indeed, what if He had said that to you? Or to me?
We certainly don't merit His love.
Romans 3:23, Matthew 18:21-22,22:21 John 8:1-11, Luke 10:29-37, John 3:16, Luke 6:27-37, 41-42, John 4:7-30
Friday, December 26, 2008
Homosexuality
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)