Providence Bible Fellowship

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Pt 6

2012-01-26T14:14:00.000-05:00

We’ve been taking some time to deal with the problem of evil. The problem of evil, loosely stated, is that given the existence of evil in the world, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God exists. Many people believe that the problem of evil is the great unanswerable objection to belief in God. However, a little reflection shows that the existence of evil is a far greater difficulty for atheists.

Atheists recognize evil just like you and I do. They read the news and hear about all the child abuse, rape, torture, murder, and genocide going on in the world. And like us, they deplore it. They deplore it and condemn it in adamant, objective terms. Their conviction that the existence of evil demonstrates that God does not exist is based upon the presupposition that if He did exist, He ought to have done something to prevent evil.

That word “ought” is the crux of their problem. On what basis are they able to determine what ought to be? According to what standard are they even able to recognize what evil is? The fact is that their innate sense of good and evil, right and wrong, is incompatible with their own worldview. They believe that the only things that exist are material, that the world is a closed system of physical processes. Richard Dawkins explains what should be expected from an evolutionary, atheistic understanding of reality:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.[1]

Dawkins is right – not about atheism being true, but about the ramifications of an evolutionary, atheistic view of the world. If atheistic presuppositions are true, there can be no design, purpose, evil, or good. The universe is just a huge pot of random processes. There can be no “ought,” only “is.”

Yet, atheists cannot help but make moral judgments. They cannot help but seek justice and abhor injustice. They cannot help but make claims about what ought to be. And their worldview cannot account for that universal impulse.

Whenever you and I drive a car we are expected to drive the speed limit. Our speed is expressed in miles per hour. The only reason we are able to comply with the law is because there is an objective standard for a mile and an objective standard for an hour. A mile is 5,280 feet. An hour is 60 minutes. Without those objective measures, the expression “miles per hour” would be completely meaningless.

Likewise, the only reason the human race is able to recognize good and evil is because we have an objective standard of good. That objective standard is the character of God (Psa 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; Luke 18:19; 1John1:5). The character of God is expressed in His Word in the form of biblical law. All people have knowledge of this law because it is written on the human heart in the form of the conscience (Rom 2:14-16).

If there is no God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. In other words, if there is no God, what is good? What is evil? The atheist is left without a way to answer that question. And when he points to evil in an attempt to argue that God does not exist, he presupposes the existence of an objective standard of good and evil – God Himself.

[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

The Transforming Power of the Gospel

2012-01-19T14:10:00.000-05:00

The New Testament is clear that God’s purpose for those whom He redeems is not complete at our justification. When we repent of our sin and trust in Christ to save us, and are declared righteous before God due to Christ’s own righteousness being imputed to us, that is only the beginning of God’s work in us. Paul writes in Romans 8:29, For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. This process of our being conformed to Christlikeness (becoming like Christ in our character and conduct) is called sanctification. It is God’s design that every believer would progress to that standard of holiness.

There is a great deal of confusion in the church about how sanctification happens. It seems that many of us err in one of two directions. Some of us live as if our transformation into the image of Christ is a work completed by our own effort alone. We attempt to rid ourselves of sinful attitudes and actions by sheer willpower. While we may accomplish some change in this way, it is usually only temporary. Inevitably, we are unsuccessful in achieving lasting change, and extreme discouragement sets in.

Others of us live as if our transformation into the image of Christ is a work completed by God without any exertion of our own. Some have called this the “let go and let God” approach to sanctification. We think that if we will just think hard about the truths of what God has done for us, we will automatically be changed in our attitudes and actions. Undoubtedly, God does work change in us, but the New Testament repeatedly teaches that we are to expend great effort in pursuing Christlikeness (Phil 2:12-13; 1Tim 4:10; Heb 12:14; 2Pet 1:3-7). Expecting God to sanctify us without any work on our part is itself disobedience.

So how do we maintain the right balance between depending upon God and actively pursuing obedience? The key is in understanding the role that the gospel plays in our sanctification.

You may have heard it said that the same gospel that saves us sanctifies us. What does that mean? And how do we appropriate the truth and power of the gospel in our everyday battle against sin? We’ve been looking at this issue in our Wednesday night study on dealing with anger. This is a teaching that is desperately needed in the church.

That’s why I’m grateful to God for a new book by Jerry Bridges that just came out, entitled, The Transforming Power of the Gospel. This is easily the best book I have read on the subject of how sanctification works and what part the gospel plays in that process.

On the inside cover of the book, Bridges writes this:

Transformation into the image of Jesus is much more than a change of outward conduct; rather, it is a deep penetrating work of the Holy Spirit in the very core of our being, what the Bible calls the heart – the center of our intellect, affections, and will. It is what is sometimes called “a change from the inside out.”

But though the transformation process is primarily a work of the Holy Spirit, it very much involves our earnest, active pursuit of that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. So what is it that will engage our affections or desires to earnestly pursue transformation into the likeness of Jesus? What is it that will inspire us to want to do what we ought to do?

This is a major question that we’ll seek to answer in this book. Its answer is one of the key lessons I have learned in my own journey toward spiritual transformation.

In the book, Bridges addresses such topics as what the gospel is, how we can embrace the gospel daily, how the gospel motivates us toward obedience, what grace is, how to understand the Holy Spirit’s work in us, what role spiritual disciplines play in our spiritual growth, and how God uses adversity to spur us on to greater maturity. This is a book that will be difficult for me to leave on the bookshelf – I will be keeping it close at hand.

Jerry Bridges writes in a very conversational style. All of his books are easy reads. This one is no different. Please consider ordering a copy for you and your family. It is well worth the time and money.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Does Jesus Hate Religion?

2012-01-15T21:21:00.003-05:00

Recently a Youtube video went viral with a catchy poem about Jesus and religion. Even today in church people were discussing it and considering the arguments that were presented.

I wanted to offer my comments but I could do no better than those made by Kevin DeYoung. You can view the video and his assessment of it here. I think he did an excellent job.

Here is one quote from his blog:
"We love the Jesus that hates religion. The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion."

Posted by Rick Jones

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Pt 5

2012-01-12T13:46:00.000-05:00

(Click here to read the previous entries in this series: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4)

In the past few weeks we have been looking at the problem of evil, which refers to a common objection to belief in God. To some, there seems to be a logical contradiction between the existence of a good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God and the existence of evil. If God is good and knows how to prevent evil and has the power to prevent evil, why does evil exist? For some, the existence of evil represents an impassible barrier to belief in God.

The simplest way to deal with this objection is to show that the problem actually does not exist. Last time, we noted that the Bible does not recognize the existence of God and evil as a problem. Scripture teaches that God is real and that He is good, omnipotent, and omniscient. It also teaches that evil exists and that God is not responsible for it. As far as the Holy Spirit-inspired biblical authors were concerned, there is no contradiction.

We can also show that the problem of evil does not exist based on the logical premises in the classical statement of the problem. The classical problem can be stripped down to the following premises:

1. God exists.

2. God is omnipotent.

3. God is omniscient.

4. God is omnibenevolent.

5. Evil exists.

Many believe that all five of these cannot be true, that they hold an irreconcilable contradiction. Alvin Plantinga, a reformed Christian philosopher and apologist, asks the question, “Where is the alleged contradiction?”[1] A true contradiction is a set of claims that a proposition is both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. For example, “It is true that my office is painted blue and it is false that my office is painted blue.” That is a true contradiction. None of the propositions above contradict any others.

In fact, the only way that a problem can be created is if we make inferences from the above propositions. For example, those who want to discredit belief in God by using the problem of evil usually make the following inferences:

1. If God is all-powerful, He is able to prevent evil.

2. If God is all-knowing, He knows both how and when to prevent evil.

3. If God is loving and good, He wants to prevent evil.

Then a fourth inference is made:

4. An all-powerful, all knowing, and good God will always choose to prevent all evil.

These inferences may sound reasonable, but they do not all necessarily follow from the original premises. There are serious problems with inferences 3 and 4. Those in the reformed tradition would contest both of them. It is true that our good, omniscient, and omnipotent God wants to prevent evil much of the time and does prevent evil much of the time, but the Bible clearly teaches that there are times when God’s higher goal of bringing glory to Himself entails allowing evil. In other words, there are times when God pursues a greater good than the good that would have become of His preventing an evil act.

A great biblical example is the story of Joseph being sold into slavery in the book of Genesis. In ch37, Joseph’s brothers threw him into a pit and sold him as a slave to a caravan of Ishmaelites, who then sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. This was undoubtedly an evil act, and we know that Joseph’s brothers knew that it was evil because they covered up their crime, and they were fearful when Joseph confronted them in ch45.

But Joseph himself gives the God’s-eye-view interpretation of these events. Having ascended from a lowly slave to the second in command over all Egypt, Joseph says to his brothers, “And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Gen 45:5-8 ESV).

God’s intent in allowing Joseph to be sold into slavery was to preserve the family of Israel from the coming famine, and therefore to keep His promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. This played a significant role in salvation history by placing all of Israel’s descendants in Egypt, so that they could be enslaved there, so that they could be saved from Egypt in the exodus, which setup the rest of Old Testament history and provided a picture of the redemption that God would one day accomplish through Christ in bringing us out of death into life.

Clearly, this shows that God does use the evil of men to bring about His own good purposes, both the salvation of His people and the glorification of Himself. It simply does not follow that if God is good and all-powerful and all-knowing, it will always be His greatest desire and plan to prevent all evil.

For the problem of evil to be successful, inferences must be made from the premises of the problem. But as we can see, those inferences are untenable. No atheistic philosopher has ever been able to demonstrate a true contradiction in the problem of evil.

Though many atheists have considered the problem of evil to be the silver bullet that destroys theism, they don’t seem to realize that the existence of evil is a far bigger problem for those who don’t believe in God. We’ll look at that next time.

[1]Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Making reading a priority in 2012

2011-12-27T11:01:00.004-05:00

This is the time of year we feel compelled the make resolutions. I believe that is a God-given urge and I think it is healthy and even spiritual so long as we are God-centered and realistic.

One of the things I would like to suggest for each member of Providence Bible Fellowship is to include reading on that list. I'm not suggesting passive, all casual reading, however. I'm recommending reading that is intentional and even challenging.

Our faith is a faith that involves the mind. We are told in scripture to "consider", "think" and "meditate" on the many doctrinal truths of Christianity. One of the great tools that helps us do this is the old-fashioned book.

We are in the last days, however, and a walk through a local Christian bookstore will reveal more bad books than good. It isn't safe to pick up this week's best-seller without doing some work beforehand. Frankly, there are a lot of terrible books written by people who are not biblically sound.

There is an excellent website that can help you toward reading good books in 2012.

http://www.discerningreader.com/.

This site will provide very helpful reviews and categorizes books. There is even a section for children. I've used this site to help me find out if a certain book is worth my time.

Then, there is a very good book that just came out this year called "Lit! A Christian Guide to Reading Books". I bought this when it first came out and I love it. You can read a review of it at the website I listed above.

And, of course, there is the Word of God. Do you have a plan to read it systematically in 2012? Ligonier Ministries provides a helpful article on this with some good tools at this site: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/bible-reading-plans-2012/

I am using the "Professor Horner" plan - it is detailed at that link.

I hope these resources are helpful. And, remember, the goal of filling our minds with the right things is to glorify God in all areas of our life. This means to make room to go outward too. We don't just sit at home reading for personal edification. We make sure to get out of our homes, get involved in our communities, be the salt and light Pastor Greg talked about a couple of weeks ago. Use what you learn to share God's gospel and bring hope to the downtrodden. Open your hearts - be merciful this time of year and always.

So, be sure to add "reading" somewhere on that list for 2012...

God bless!

posted by Brian Jonson

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Pt 4

2011-12-21T11:39:00.000-05:00

(Previous posts in this series: part 1, part 2, part 3)

In the past few weeks we have been looking at the problem of evil. The problem of evil refers to a common objection to belief in God. To some, there seems to be a logical contradiction between the existence of a good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God and the existence of evil. If God is good and knows how to prevent evil and has the power to prevent evil, why does evil exist? For some, the existence of evil represents an impassible barrier to belief in God.

Our first task in dealing with this problem was to determine whether or not the Bible teaches that God is good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and if so, whether or not these truths are essential to the Christian faith. If any one of these three attributes are not true of God, the problem of evil goes away. But we found that not only does the Bible clearly teach that God is all three of these things, but also that without any one of the three, the Christian faith is destroyed. It is the teaching of the Bible that the goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence of God are essential truths of our faith. We cannot deal with the problem of evil by sacrificing one of these attributes.

So what next? A very simple method is to just show that the problem does not actually exist. This post and the next will focus on the fact that both the Bible and logic tell us that there is no such problem, that is, that there is no contradiction between the existence of the God of the Bible and the existence of evil. Of course, that doesn’t make the emotional tension go away all together, and future posts in this series will deal with popular but biblically faulty approaches to dealing with the problem of evil, as well as how to understand the providence of God as it relates to the existence of evil in the world.

First of all, the most simple way to deal with the problem of evil is to note that the Bible does not recognize the co-existence of a good, omniscient, and omnipotent God and evil as a problem. Perhaps that statement should be qualified somewhat. The Bible does recognize that man has a problem it, but also affirms that God has no such problem. In other words, the Bible notes that man may not understand how and why God allows evil, but the Bible also notes that God does not feel obligated to explain himself on the issue.

The story of Job is a prime example of this tension. As you may know, the book of Job begins with an assessment of Job’s righteousness: “that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (1:1). The Lord then called Satan’s attention to Job: “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” (1:8) Satan replies that the only reason Job is upright is because God has blessed him. “But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (1:11). So God gives Satan permission to take away everything dear to Job, and eventually gives him permission to take Job’s health as well (1:12; 2:4-6). Satan does so.

Most of the rest of the book details Job and his friends trying to make sense of the suffering that has befallen him. Job’s friends insist that if evil has come upon Job, it must be because of some evil found in him – it must be God’s punishment. Job denies this possibility, arguing that he has lived a morally upright life. Job’s “final argument” is in chs29-31, in which he makes a case for his own righteousness, laments the suffering he has experienced, and appeals to God for an explanation.

In the next section (chs32-37), a young man named Elihu comes and chastises both Job and his friends for their approach to the question. Finally, the Lord Himself addresses Job in chs38-41. His response could be summed up in one question: “who do you think you are to question the Almighty?”

The book ends with Job repenting of his presumptuousness and God blessing him beyond his original state. In the end, Job does not get his question answered. He does not learn why a good and just God allowed such intense evil to befall him. The message seems to be that God is sovereign and all-knowing and good…and owes no explanation to man for the things that He does and allows.

It is fine to ask God questions. It is quite another thing to demand answers and to act as if God is bound to give them. There are areas of mystery that we cannot understand, but we must trust that the Bible is true and that God is who He says He is. What we do know is clear: Scripture consistently denies that God is in any way responsible for evil. 1 John 1:5 tells us that “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” We have already noted in this series that James 1:13 affirms that “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” Nevertheless, evil exists. The Bible teaches both truths side by side and we are bound to believe them both. In our finite human minds, we may not be able to reconcile the two, but the Bible does not recognize the problem of evil as a true problem.

It is important to understand this as we begin to look at how to understand these issues. We must start where Job ended – humbly acknowledging that our understanding is limited, our God is inscrutable, and no matter how far we progress in making sense of the issue at hand, God is worthy of our worship and love.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33-36)

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Pt 3

2011-12-08T11:49:00.000-05:00

(To read the first two posts in this series, click here and here.)

A couple of weeks ago, we started to look at how to deal with one of the most common and most serious objections to the Christian faith, the problem of evil. The objection proposes that the existence of evil in the world is incompatible with the existence of a good, omniscient, omnipotent God. The problem of evil could be formally stated as follows:

“If God is good and loves all people, it is reasonable to believe that he wants to deliver the creatures he loves from evil and suffering.

If God is all-knowing, it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

If God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe to he is able to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

…But evil exists.”[1]

Some then conclude that since evil exists, the God of the Bible – a good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God – cannot exist.

In past posts, we have discovered that the first two of those attributes of God – goodness and omniscience – are essential to the Christian faith. Not only does the Bible teach that God is good and all-knowing, but also that if we lose those attributes, Christianity is gone. Today, we will look at the last of the three attributes, omnipotence. Does the Bible teaching that God is all-powerful? If so, is that attribute essential to the Christian faith?

It is the consistent testimony of Scripture that God is all-powerful. Twice in Scripture the rhetorical question is asked, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?”, implying, of course, a negative answer (Gen 18:14; Jer 32:27). In one of those contexts, Jeremiah makes the explicit statement, “nothing is too difficult for You” (Jer 32:17).

In Luke 1:37, when the angel tells Mary that she will conceive a Son by the Holy Spirit and that her elderly and formerly barren relative, Elizabeth, will also bear a son, the angel concludes by saying, “For nothing will be impossible with God.” In Job 42:2, Job says to the Lord, "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” Paul writes in Eph 3:20 that God is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think.

God’s power is also demonstrated in His acts of creating and sustaining the universe. Men hold the power to destroy, but only God has the power to create something out of nothing. And He did so with nothing more than the sound of His voice (Gen 1). Further, He maintains the existence of all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3).

So God is all-powerful but we have to be careful how we define omnipotence. We cannot say that omnipotence means that God is able to do absolutely anything. There are a couple of categories of things that God cannot do. First, God cannot do logically impossible actions. For example, can God make two mountains without a valley in between? Of course, not – it is not logically possible. Thomas Aquinas called such acts “pseudotasks.” A logically impossible task is not an task.[2] That God cannot do such things does not count against His omnipotence.

(While we’re here, I’d like to address another popular objection to God’s omnipotence: “Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” This ends up being a pseudotask, too. God’s power to create is infinite. His power to lift is also infinite. It is logically impossible for one infinite power to be greater than another infinite power. So it is nonsense to ask if God can make a rock so big that He can’t lift it. Such a question could be asked of a human, though. Man’s power to build is finite, as is his power to lift. Two finite powers can be compared to determine which is greater. But such a question cannot be asked of an infinite being.)

The Bible also teaches that God cannot commit immoral actions. He cannot tempt or be tempted (Jas 1:13). He cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13). So it is clear that it is not accurate to say that God can do anything. A better definition of omnipotence then is that God is able to do anything that is consistent with His will and character.

With this definition in mind, we can say that the Bible does teach that God is omnipotent. The next question is, is this attribute of God essential to the Christian faith? We can answer this by considering all of the things (some of which have already been mentioned) that Scripture attributes to the power of God.

God spoke the world into existence (Gen 1). God sustains the existence of the world with the word of His power (Heb 1:3). God gave power to Christ, by which He fulfilled His earthly ministry (Acts 10:38). It is by God’s power that the gospel saves sinful men (Rom 1:16; 1Cor 1:18). By God’s power He raised Christ from the dead (2Cor 13:4; Eph 1:20). By God’s power we will be raised from the dead (1Cor 6:14). God’s power enables us to suffer for the gospel (2Tim 1:8). By God’s power we are being kept in the faith (1Pet 1:5). His divine power has granted to us all things pertaining to salvation and sanctification (2Pet 1:3).

To limit God’s power is to put all of salvation history in jeopardy. Christianity cannot exist without an omnipotent God. This attribute is essential to our faith.

Now we know that the three attributes of God detailed in the problem of evil – goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence – are clearly taught in the Bible and are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. So we cannot deal with the problem of evil by denying any one of the three. We will have to address the issue from another angle.

Until next time, I encourage you to take a few minutes to meditate on the blessings that are ours in Christ by God’s power, as described in 1 Pet 1:3-5.

[1]Ronald Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) p178.

[2]Ibid., 185.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

A Couple of Caveats on Peacemaking

2011-12-06T14:10:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday, as we studied the seventh beatitude, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. An important question to consider is this: In our roles as peacemakers, should we pursue peace at all costs? I think the biblical answer is 'no.' There are at least two caveats to our mandate to pursue peace.

The first caveat is demonstrated by what could appear to be a contradiction in the book of Matthew. On Sunday, we noted that God is our model for peacemaking. He is the quintessential peacemaker. Through Christ, He has reconciled us to Himself, and He calls us to be peacemakers by taking His gospel to the lost and by making peace in interpersonal conflicts.

However, in Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household…”

Wow. It sounds like Jesus is doing the exact opposite of what he says a true disciple should do. It sounds like He believes He came to bring conflict rather than reconciliation. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?

As always, context is king. In Matthew 10, Jesus is preparing to send his disciples out on their own for the first time. He is warning them about the persecution that awaits them, encouraging them to have no fear. And in vv32-33, He says, “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” Jesus’ desire is for the disciples to maintain their devotion to Him in the face of certain persecution. If they deny Him, He will deny them.

Keeping that in mind, now let’s read again vv34-36, but this time continuing through v39:

34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Now that we have framed Jesus’ statement, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword,” we can see clearly that Jesus does not mean that He came to just cause random strife and familial disharmony. The context shows that the subject at hand is the decision that everyone must make – "how serious is my devotion to Christ?" Jesus explains that for the true disciple that devotion must be ultimate. vv37-39 can be used to interpret vv34-36. When Jesus says, “I have come to set a man against his father,” v37 indicates we should understand Him to mean that the true disciple must love Christ more than father or mother. Discipleship is a line in the sand. It has been the experience of many throughout the history of the church that the decision to follow Christ has meant being disowned by loved ones. If put in a situation to have to choose between one’s family or following Christ, the true disciple will choose Christ. And that decision will mean alienation from family and a lack of peace in one’s closest earthly relationships.

So if we were to try to reconcile the seventh beatitude with this passage in Matthew 10, we could say that the true disciple will pursue peace with all men, but not at the expense of his devotion to Christ. Christ came to reconcile men to God, but only those who surrender completely to Him.

Another caveat that we should note is that the true disciple will pursue peace with all men, but not at the expense of sound doctrine. Church history is replete with examples of those who with grand intentions downplayed doctrinal distinctives for the sake of unity, but always with disastrous results.

It may seem counterintuitive to many, but the Bible teaches that commitment to sound doctrine is not a barrier to peace and unity in the church, but rather is vital to it. On Sunday, we read a few verses from Ephesians 4:

1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,

2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,

3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

This is a clear call to peace and unity in the church. Based on what we see in many mainline denominations today, we might expect Paul to then go on to write, “and the way to achieve this unity is to not get bent out of shape over doctrine. Doctrine divides.”

But this is nothing like what we actually find in Ephesians 4. Rather, Paul immediately writes about the function of spiritual gifts in the church, particularly those gifts that major on doctrinal teaching:

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

Notice that those tasked with teaching in the body do so for equipping the saints for ministry so that body will become mature in Christ, with the result that they will not be carried about by false doctrine. In other words, the peace and unity to which we have been called in the church is not accomplished in spite of sound doctrine, but because of it.

We are called to be peacemakers, but we must do so without compromising those things that are essential to our faith, which include total devotion to Christ and sound doctrine.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Dealing with the Problem of Evil, Pt 2

2011-11-30T16:31:00.000-05:00

Last time we began to look at how to answer an objection to theistic belief called the problem of evil. The problem of evil notes the apparent incompatibility of several essential attributes of God and the existence of evil in the world. The objection could be formally stated as follows:

“If God is good and loves all people, it is reasonable to believe that he wants to deliver the creatures he loves from evil and suffering.

If God is all-knowing, it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

If God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe to he is able to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

…But evil exists.”[1]

Some then conclude that since evil exists, the God of the Bible – a good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God – cannot exist.

Today we will continue looking at those attributes of God – goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence. Are they essential truths of the Christian faith? Or can we afford to sacrifice one of them in order to deal with the problem of evil?

Last time, we saw that God’s goodness was an absolute essential. Without God’s goodness, we have no gospel. So now, what about omniscience? We actually need to break that question down into two smaller questions: (1) does the Bible teach it? and (2) is it essential to our faith?

There is no question that the Bible teaches that God is omniscient, that is, that He knows all things actual and possible – past, present, and future. God knows everything that is actual. Job 37:16 describes God as the one who is “perfect in knowledge.” 1 John 3:20 tells us that He “knows everything.” He knows every bird (Psa 50:10). He knows every thought of man (Matt6:7-8; Psa 94:11).

God also knows everything that is possible. Matt 11:21-23: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Here Jesus tells what would have been true had circumstances been different. Consider also 1 Sam 23:11-13 and 2Kings 13:19.

If God knows everything that is actual and possible, that would have to include all things past, present, and future. However, because of recent debate about God’s knowledge of the future, I’d like to take minute to address that specifically.

In Isaiah 41:21-23, knowledge of the future is presented as the test of a true God. Speaking to worshipers of false gods, Isaiah writes, Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified.

In Isaiah 46:9-10, the Lord declares that He alone has this ability: …remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'…

There are nine separate sections of Isaiah 40-48 whose point is essentially the same: the God of Israel is the one true God as evidenced by the fact that He alone knows and declares the future (Isa 41:21-29; 42:8-9;43:8-13; 44:6-8; 44:24-28; 45:20-23; 46:8-11; 48:3-8; 48:14-16).

Psalm 139 is also a classic text on the foreknowledge of God. v4: Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. v16b: In your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

There is really is no denying that the Bible teaches that God knows all things. So now the question is, is the omniscience of God an essential truth of the Christian faith? This question can be answered by referring back to the Isaiah passages above. If we take Isaiah seriously, we would have to conclude that if God does not know all things, He is not God, since that is the standard that God Himself presents as the difference between true and false deity.

So in the end, asking the question “is the omniscience of God an essential truth of the Christian faith?” is like asking “is God an essential truth of the Christian faith?” Without omniscience, God isn’t God. Without God, there is no Christian faith. The bottom line is that like the doctrine of the goodness of God, the omniscience of God is an essential doctrine for us. We simply cannot sacrifice it in order to deal with the problem of evil.

Next time, we’ll consider the omnipotence of God – does the Bible teach it and if so, how important is it?

Between now and then, I would encourage you to take some time to read and meditate on Psalm 139 and consider how intimately essential God’s omniscience is in your life.

[1]Ronald Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) p178.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Dealing with the Problem of Evil

2011-11-17T14:17:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the greatest objection to belief in the existence of God is the "problem of evil." There are a number of essential Christian beliefs about God that seem to many to be incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Some would say that it is impossible for a God like this to exist and for there to be evil in the world. How do they arrive at that conclusion? Like this:

“If God is good, it is reasonable to believe that he wants to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

If God is all-knowing, it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

If God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe to he is able to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.

…But evil exists.”[1]

The existence of evil seems incompatible with a God who is good, omniscient, and omnipotent. If God exists and allows evil, they argue, he cannot be good, omniscient, and omnipotent. He could have any two of those three attributes and it would make sense that evil exists; but he could not be all three and allow evil to exist. We could have a God who wants to deliver his creatures from evil and knows how, but who does not have the power to do so. Or we could have a God who wants to deliver his creatures from evil and has the power, but doesn’t know how. Or – most concerning – we could have a God who knows how to deliver his creatures from evil and has the power to do so, but who is not good and does not want to deliver them. Any of those conceptions of God would be compatible with the existence of evil in the world. But not a God who is good, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Many have found it natural to simply take the extra step of saying that the existence of evil makes it unlikely that God exists at all.

This is not just a philosophical and theological conundrum with which professors busy themselves on a theoretical level. Though many books have been written on a scholarly level, the problem is painfully real where the rubber meets the road. 4-year-olds die of Leukemia. Innocent people lose their lives in acts of terrorism. The weak are victimized and abused by bad men. Tsunamis, earthquakes, car accidents, serial killings, and suicide bombings testify to a world where evil runs rampant. We have all experienced it in some way. We have all seen it with our eyes. It is real. No one in his right mind denies the existence of evil.

It is much easier to deny that God is good, all-knowing, or all powerful…or that He exists at all.

So how are we to make sense of this? Is this an insurmountable problem? Does the Christian armed with Scripture have a meaningful reply? Or should we just ignore the dilemma?

I don’t think we can ignore it. Sooner or later, we will all be confronted by someone struggling with this issue. And we need to be prepared to answer the question biblically and without fear.

The first thing we need to consider is whether or not those three attributes of God – goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence – are essential truths of the Christian faith. Can we afford to sacrifice one of those in order to deal with the problem of evil?

First, is God good and if so, is that essential? Certainly the Bible testifies that God is good: “The LORD is good” (Nah 1:7; cf. Ps. 34:8, Ps. 100:5, Ps. 135:3, Ps. 145:9, Jer. 33:11, Lam. 3:25, 1 Pet. 2:3). This is goodness in a moral sense. He is the very standard of goodness. Jesus said in Luke 18:19, “No one is good but God alone.” The psalmist instructs, “O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good” (Psa 106:1). The psalmist also connects God’s inherent goodness with the goodness of His deeds: “You are good and you do good; teach me your statutes” (Psa 119:68). We also know that God is the source of all good things: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

So clearly, the Bible affirms that God is good, so we must believe it. But for the sake of argument, let’s consider whether or not His goodness is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.

It is not too bold to assert that if God is not good, Christianity cannot exist. The gospel of Jesus Christ is founded upon the goodness of God. Consider the role that God’s goodness plays in our salvation according to Titus 3:3-7:

3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.
4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

If God were not good, He would not have made any effort to save sinners. We should back up even further and note that without God’s perfect goodness as the standard for human conduct, there would be no way for us to know sin. Further, if God were not good, there would be no punishment for sin, since the justice of God arises from His moral perfection. If God were not good, Christ would not be good and would therefore be unable to atone for our sins. In short, if God is not good, we lose every part of the gospel – there would be no sin, no judgment, no Christ, and no salvation.

We simply cannot afford to sacrifice the doctrine of the goodness of God in order to deal with the problem of evil. But what about God’s omniscience and omnipotence? We’ll address those in our next post in this series.

Until then, I would encourage you to take some time to meditate on Psalm 16, in which the psalmist writes, I say to the LORD, “You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.”

[1]Ronald Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) p178.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

The Benefits of Suffering

2011-11-10T14:34:00.001-05:00

It seems that our small congregation is keeping the entire medical industry of Cincinnati afloat. We have cancer, chicken pox, allergies, shingles, heart arrhythmias, sore throats, high blood pressure, bulging disks, head trauma, melanoma, broken bones, fibromyalgia, and a brain tumor. (If I left out your specific ailment, it wasn’t intentional – it’s getting hard to keep up.) We have people recovering from surgery, some preparing for surgery, and others considering it. We’re waiting for test results, enduring treatments, getting second opinions, scheduling physical therapy, and filling prescriptions.

We have other problems, too. Beyond our own physical ailments and those of family and friends, we are enduring trials financially, relationally, emotionally, psychologically, and every other way imaginable.

And I’m so encouraged by it all. Not so much by the trials themselves, but by how the body is responding to them. I haven’t heard anyone complain. I haven’t seen any bitterness. Instead, I’ve heard people praying for and encouraging one another. I’ve heard people talk about trusting the Lord in the midst of it all. I’ve heard those who are coming out of trials speak about what the Lord taught them through it. It looks as though we are living like we believe what we say we believe.

There is nothing wrong with wanting trials to be over. As we saw in Matt 5:4 a couple of weeks ago, it is characteristic of a true disciple to mourn the effects of sin in the world. But I want to encourage you to continue to keep in mind what God is accomplishing through these trials.

All of our sicknesses, struggles, and heartaches are mechanisms that God is using to sanctify us. And this has numerous effects. First, our trials teach to value God’s Word. The believer who is enduring a trial is drawn to God’s Word to find comfort and help from the Lord. Psalm 119:71 captures this well: It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes. A trial can be a gift from the Lord to a person whose devotional life has grown stale. He graciously puts us in a position where we instinctively run to the shelter in His Word.

Trials are also beneficial to us in that they can be used by the Lord to expose our hearts. Either the difficulties of life show us sin that we are harboring in our hearts or affirm to us that we are trusting the Lord as we should. Both are good for us. For example, if we are enduring a difficult time financially and we find ourselves complaining about all the things we don’t have, that trial has shown us that we are valuing something above God and that we have a grumbling spirit. This is good because after seeing our sin, we then know what needs to be killed.

On the other hand, if we are enduring an illness or injury and we find ourselves trusting in the Lord rather than grumbling, that trial gives us evidence of God’s grace in our lives and shows how he has grown us. The pressures of life force whatever is in our hearts to come out. That is always good for us.

Another purpose that trials can serve is preparing us to comfort those who will suffer in similar ways in future. Paul writes in 2 Cor 1:3-4, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. Pain trains us to help others who suffer. Who can serve a parent who has lost a child better than another parent who has lost a child? Who can come alongside one enslaved to a besetting sin more effectively than another who has struggled with the same issue? When we go through that training ground, we are actually getting the same instruction Christ did – He is able to help us because He endured all the trials and temptations of we have. When use our experience to help others, we follow in His footsteps.

Another benefit of the difficulties of this life is that they make us long for and trust the Lord. To endure any trial, we must trust Him. And to maintain hope, we must continue to believe that He will come again, defeat the enemy, and erase the effects of sin for all eternity. A person who never experiences difficulty will be a person with weak faith and superficial hope.

Finally, our trials afford us opportunities to spread the truth of the gospel. We are exhorted in 1 Pet 3:15, be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. This is a classic verse for defending the faith, but the context is about enduring suffering. We are surrounded by a lost world. We are aliens here. And when we suffer, the world is watching to see how we respond. If we do not respond as they would, if we remain faithful to the Lord, never losing hope, they will wonder why. Your specific trial could be the tool that the Lord will use to draw a lost soul to Himself.

All these things together are conforming us to the image of the Son: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Rom 8:28-30).

Everything…even what you are currently suffering through, is part of His plan for your good and His glory. May we keep this in mind and may we continue to suffer well that Christ might be exalted.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

"Ceremonial Deism"

2011-11-03T12:32:00.000-04:00

On Tuesday this week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure reaffirming the national motto, “In God We Trust.” Some have scratched their heads about this, since the motto had already been reaffirmed in 2002 (it was made the official motto of the country in 1956).

As expected, numerous secularists decried the action as being a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”). This claim has already been rejected in numerous lawsuits either seeking to overturn the national motto or to rid “under God” from the pledge of allegiance. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to even hear a case challenging the printing of “In God We Trust” on the nation’s coins and currency.

As I was reading about it this week, one detail jumped out at me. The typical way the courts reject these challenges is to identify the national motto and the reference to God in the pledge as “ceremonial deism.” Ceremonial deism is a legal term used to refer to nominally religious statements that are merely ritual and non-religious due to long usage. In other words, the phrases “have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”[1] For this reason, the courts maintain, the phrases do not violate the Establishment Clause.

The reason this caught my eye is because just this week in our Wednesday night series on worldviews, we studied deism. The irony in using the phrase “ceremonial deism” to describe the use of “In God We Trust” as our national motto is that a consistent deist would never affirm the motto in the first place!

The God of deism is perceived to be nothing more than a First Cause. According to the deist, the world is like a magnificent clock. It is ordered perfectly and works in absolute precision – just like clockwork. But to have a universe so well ordered, there must have been a clock maker. This is the God of deism. He created the universe as a uniformity of cause and effect, and walked away. He has had nothing to do with the creation since creating it. He does not love the creation or have any kind of a relationship with it. The universe is now a closed system that cannot be acted upon from the outside.

So a deist who is being consistent would never trust this God. It would be irrational to do so, since the God of deism is not sovereign over the creation and does not act providentially within it. The deist cannot even trust in himself since everything that happens is the result of a closed system of cause and effect. Everything that has ever happened and ever will happen was determined at the moment of creation. Neither God nor man can change the course of history. The universe is nothing but one big machine.

If the national motto is “In God We Trust,” it can’t be the deistic God. As we will see in the course of our worldview series, the only God who can be trusted is the God of Scripture.

Although “ceremonial deism” is not a good descriptor of our national motto, it does accurately reflect the spiritual climate in our country. At its core, deism is an attempt to rid man of responsibility to God, yet without completely doing away with the idea of God. That has been the course of America for decades now. That the legislators of a nation as secularized as ours would vote overwhelmingly to affirm “In God We Trust” proves the point. We don’t want God’s moral absolutes, but we are not quite ready to remove Him altogether. This underscores the fact that referring to America as a“Christian nation” is a misnomer. Though the majority of American’s may identify themselves as Christians, the popular conception of God is the God of deism, a god who cannot save.

What will it take to change this? It will take the church living faithfully in the midst of a lost world and a brand of revival that can only be created by the Holy Spirit. In other words, more than a simple act of Congress.

[1]Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).

Posted by Greg Birdwell

To The Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson

2011-10-27T11:04:00.000-04:00

“I have now to ask, whether you can consent to part with your daughter early next spring, to see her no more in this world; whether you can consent to her departure, and her subjection to the hardships and sufferings of a missionary life; whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean; to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death. Can you consent to all this, for the sake of him who left his heavenly home, and died for her and for you; for the sake of perishing, immortal souls; for the sake of Zion, and the glory of God? Can you consent to all this, in hope of soon meeting your daughter in the world of glory, with the crown of righteousness, brightened with the acclamations of praise which shall redound to her Savior from heathens saved, through her means, from eternal woe and despair?”

This is not your typical, “may I have your daughter’s hand in marriage?” speech. Yet, it is an excerpt from a letter written in 1810 for that very purpose by Adoniram Judson to John Hasseltine requesting permission to marry his daughter, Nancy, and to take her with him to serve as missionaries overseas. Mr. Hasseltine gave his consent, and the young couple shortly found their way to shores of Burma.

Whether or not Judson truly expected to face the potential difficulties detailed in his letter, his words were prophetic. He and those with him would eventually experience all the suffering mentioned there, save the violent death.

The story of the life of Adoniram Judson, as told in Courtney Anderson’s To The Golden Shore, is all at once inspiring, encouraging, convicting, and horrifying. The first Baptist missionary sent abroad from the shores of America, Judson exemplified the essence of the missionary heart and task. After denying the faith in his college years, he was prompted by the death of his best friend to consider his own mortality and the purpose of his life. Shortly, he was converted and dedicated his life to the spread of the gospel among the “heathen nations.”

Judson’s dedication to the task is something unparalleled in our modern times. That dedication, reflected in his letter to John Hasseltine, would lead him to spend his entire life in Burma, a land completely untouched by the gospel prior to his ministry there. He diligently absorbed the local Burmese dialect so that he could translate the Bible into the native tongue. He would spend thirty years laboring on that translation only to immediately begin revising it until the time of his death. All the while, he was also writing and distributing gospel tracts in a land that was hostile to the Christian faith. It took six years to see the first native convert.

That Adoniram Judson labored so long and so faithfully is inspiring in itself. However, the account of how he suffered throughout his ministry makes his dedication all the more amazing. There was the seemingly constant loss of friends and family to disease, the imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Burmese government, and the numerous personal life-threatening illnesses. There were two constant themes in Judson’s life: the ever-present specter of death and the methodical translation of the Bible into Burmese.

To the Golden Shore:The Life of Adoniram Judson is one of the best books I have ever read. It prompted me to examine the motives behind my life’s pursuits. It put into blessed perspective the light, momentary difficulties I have experienced thus far. And it challenged me to consider what meaningful return the cause of Christ is receiving for the investment God has made in me. It is rare to find such an engaging and challenging story. Courtney Anderson’s care in the writing of this work has made it an enduring classic in Baptist history, considered by many to be one of the greatest Christian biographies every written. I highly recommend it to you.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Are Mormons Christians?

2011-10-20T14:34:00.001-04:00

Anyone paying even marginal attention to the Republican presidential primary race must be aware of the firestorm ignited recently by the statements of a Baptist minister in Texas. Dr. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas made comments claiming that Mormonism is not a branch of Christianity, but rather is a cult. He also drew a distinction between true, born again believers and Mormons, like Mitt Romney.

The furor that erupted provides the Church with an opportunity to consider an important issue: Are Mormons Christians? Is the Mormon Church just another denomination within the body of Christ? Or is it a false religion?

The pluralistic spirit of the age combined with the influence of political correctness has caused many in evangelicalism to either wittingly or unwittingly take a soft stance on the issue. However, when we understand Mormon doctrine and compare it to the teaching of Scripture, it becomes clear that to ask the question “are Mormons Christians?” is similar to asking “are Muslims Christians?” or “are Scientologists Christians?” The similarity between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity goes no further than the level of shared terminology. When compared side-by-side, the god of Mormonism is not like the God of the Bible, the Christ of Mormonism is not like the Christ of the Bible, and the salvation of Mormonism is not like the salvation of the Bible.

Mormonism is purely polytheistic. That is, there is not one God, but many. In fact, the God of the earth was once like we are now. We are of the same species as God. “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through the school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God – an exalted being – through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”[1] In other words, God was not always God. He was a man and He became an exalted being through obedience.

Mormonism teaches that you and I have this same potential. If we are successful, we will become like God, ruling a planet of our own: “You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you – namely, by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”[2]

But what does the Bible say about this? Are there many Gods?

Isaiah 43:10-11 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Other references could be quoted, but these are sufficient to obliterate the notions that there were gods before God and that there will be gods after God. “Besides me there is no god.” Therefore, the polytheistic god of Mormonism is a false god.

Likewise, the Christ of Mormonism is a false Christ. First, according to Mormon doctrine, Christ was not conceived of the Holy Spirit (as Matt 1:18 tells us), but was rather the result of actual sexual relations between God the Father and Mary. (Mormons believe that God is a physical person.) So Christ was not born of a virgin. Second, the blood of the Christ of Mormonism is insufficient to atone for the sins of men. As Brigham Young taught, “There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”[3] Yet, 1 John 1:7 tells us that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

It should be no surprise then that Mormon salvation is a false salvation. The Mormon doctrine of salvation is not by faith alone, but is also a result of baptism, obedience to the Mormon Church, good works, and “keeping the commandments of God [which] will cleanse away the stain of sin.”[4] This is a works-based salvation, a notion against which the totality of the New Testament cries out. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-9, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul wrote these words: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. This is a chilling indictment of all those who teach the Mormon doctrine of salvation.

It is obvious that the doctrines of Mormonism are heretical when compared with the essential doctrines of the biblical Christian faith. So, are Mormons Christians? Not if they hold to the propositions of Mormon doctrine. The Mormon Church holds a different canon of Scripture, a different, polytheistic God, a different Christ, and a different gospel. That our society would react so strongly against a pastor who claims that Mormonism is not a branch of Christianity demonstrates how pluralistic our society has become.

Mormons are lost. We cannot consider them our brothers and sisters in Christ. We ought to have compassion on them, pray for them, and evangelize them.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

[1]Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 104.

[2]Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 6:3-4.

[3]Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:219.

[4]Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:4.

A Greater Holocaust

2011-10-06T14:30:00.000-04:00

Who do we normally think of as the epitome of human evil? Who is the quintessential example of the dark potential of human depravity?

Adolph Hitler. If you want to cast someone as a tyrant, bigot, or inhuman masochist, compare them to Hitler. How many times during George W. Bush’s presidency did we see protesters carrying large pictures of Bush with the perennially recognizable Hitler mustache painted on his upper lip? Recently, Hank Williams Jr. compared President Obama to Hitler, and as a result his song, “All My Rowdy Friends,” was discontinued as the intro to Monday Night Football after serving twenty years in that role. It’s a serious thing to throw the “Hitler epithet.”

Why is that? There have been other more murderous figures in human history, several in the 20^th century alone. Yet, Hitler tops the list. There may be numerous reasons for this. Perhaps it is because his atrocities were the most widely documented. Who hasn’t seen the horrific pictures of giants pits full of emaciated corpses and heard the nightmarish tales of the suffering perpetrated in the concentration camps? Perhaps it is due to the fact that the holocaust represented an ethnic cleansing – millions of people died simply for being Jews. Perhaps it was the cruelty employed in the murdering of these people. Perhaps it was the brainwashing of the German people that empowered Hitler and his Nazis to carry out the epic slaughter. Perhaps it was all these things combined. Whatever the reasons, Hitler and Nazi Germany remain today the automatic darkest examples of the evil that human beings are capable of committing.

It’s amazing how easy it is to recognize evil that is happening or has happened somewhere else. We are horrified by a Hitler from which we are over half a century removed, yet we tolerate a more diabolical evil taking place right under our noses. There is a greater holocaust, both in terms of duration and lives lost, currently happening in the United States.

Hitler killed a total of between 10 and 12 million people. The United States has aborted over 50 million children since 1973.

I recently came across one of the most powerful videos I’ve ever seen. There is a link below to a video called “180,” released by Living Waters, a ministry founded by Ray Comfort. In it, Comfort uses his signature street evangelism method to lead people through a discussion of the holocaust, eliciting from them the pure evil of what happened at the hands of the Nazis. He then relates the holocaust to the modern massacre that we know as abortion. The results are stunning.

The video is about 33 minutes long, but well worth your time. It does contain graphic content – there are disturbing images of both the holocaust and the world of abortion, as well as some profanity, all of which is bleeped out, though. This is probably not something you will want your children to watch with you. You may also want to view it yourself before allowing your teens to see it.

http://www.180movie.com/

Let me also say that even as we take a hard stand against abortion, we need to reach out in love and grace to those who have had abortions. Abortion is a sin, as the Bible clearly demonstrates that it is wrong to murder. But God is loving and gracious. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1John 1:9). If you or someone you know has had an abortion and still struggle with guilt, please contact the church. We want to come alongside and offer hope and help from God’s Word. The church phone is 513-759-0096.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

What is a Worldview?

2011-09-29T11:25:00.000-04:00

Romans 1:18-32 shows us that the natural inclination of fallen man is to eradicate God from the mind. v28, says that they did not see fit to acknowledge God. A more literal translation would be, they did not approve of having God in their knowledge. They wanted to remove God from their conceptual framework. The rest of v28 shows that because of this, God gave them up to a debased mind, which resulted in their practicing all forms of ungodliness.

Removing God from the picture inevitably leads to lawlessness. But there is another way in which seeking to scrub God from consciousness affects the human mind. It leads to a faulty understanding of the world as a whole and how it works. It leads to a faulty worldview.

Most of us have heard the term worldview, but we may not know what it is. A worldview is a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality. It provides the framework for how we live our lives.

Everyone has a worldview, whether they realize it or not. Everyone interacts with the world. Everyone has beliefs, which affect the way they understand the world. Everyone lives in accordance with that understanding. The big question is, what is informing our worldview? On what is it based?

In a world that has largely rejected the notion of the God of the Bible, we should expect there to be many different faulty worldviews, worldviews that cannot sufficiently explain reality, worldviews that are inherently inconsistent, worldviews that do not accord with human experience – in short, worldviews that are wholly at odds with the truths of Scripture.

In our first Wednesday night teaching series beginning October 5, we’re going to be taking a look at the concept of worldview. That may seem like a completely cerebral endeavor with little practical significance, but nothing could be further from the truth. Our culture is becoming increasingly pluralistic, that is, society has embraced the notion that there are many avenues to truth, many avenues to God. Large groups even in the church have accepted this. For this reason, I see four reasons why an understanding of the major worldviews will be a benefit to us in our everyday lives.

First, understanding worldviews will help us to defend the faith. The Christian worldview is at its core exclusivistic. We do not believe that there are many ways to God. There is one way – salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. As time passes, we will be more frequently challenged about our beliefs. We must understand our own worldview so that we can speak the truth in love, answer those challenges, and show that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that accords with reality.

Second, understanding worldviews will strengthen our faith. We have become so ignorant of our own worldview, as taught in Scripture, that we are ripe for attack from skeptics who would cause us to doubt the faith. This happens all the time. For example, young people are going off to college, perhaps knowing what they believe, but not why. Secular professors are preying on these students, shaking their faith to its core and sometimes destroying it. Understanding what the Bible teaches about reality will bolster our faith and prepare us for the attacks of an unbelieving world.

Third, understanding worldviews is an invaluable tool in sharing the gospel, specifically, in answering objections. Though people deny belief in the Bible and belief in God, everyone presupposes the existence of absolute truth everyday. It is impossible to live otherwise. The ability to discern a person’s worldview enables the evangelist to know how to bring Scripture to bear on that specific person’s life and beliefs.

Fourth, understanding worldviews will reveal the greatest influences in our personal lives. As we learn the characteristics of the various worldviews, it may become clear to us that we have been more influenced by our secular culture than by God’s Word. This provides a great diagnostic tool to correct our thinking and help us in our sanctification.

A great book on this subject is James W. Sire’s The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. It is a thorough and easy to understand primer on the subject, demonstrating the superiority of the Christian worldview as well as the incoherence of all other major worldviews. It would be a great supplement to our study.

I look forward to next Wednesday evening. Our time together will run concurrently with the AWANA activities – 6:30-8:00. I hope to see you there.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Psalm 112 - Happy is the Fearful

2011-09-22T14:10:00.000-04:00

1 Praise the LORD! Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments!

2 His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed.

3 Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.

4 Light dawns in the darkness for the upright; he is gracious, merciful, and righteous.

5 It is well with the man who deals generously and lends; who conducts his affairs with justice.

6 For the righteous will never be moved; he will be remembered forever.

7 He is not afraid of bad news; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD.

8 His heart is steady; he will not be afraid, until he looks in triumph on his adversaries.

9 He has distributed freely; he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever; his horn is exalted in honor.

10 The wicked man sees it and is angry; he gnashes his teeth and melts away; the desire of the wicked will perish!

Happy is the man who fears the LORD… That’s what v1 is telling us. “Blessed” here is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word we find repeatedly in the first verses of Matthew 5, the Beatitudes (which we will begin studying in our Matthew sermon series in a couple of weeks.) Happy is the man who fears the LORD. That is why the psalm starts with the exclamation “Praise the LORD!” The psalmist is celebrating the life that is his by virtue of the fact that he fears the Lord.

But that sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? How can a person be happy and fearful at the same time? Occasionally, one of my kids will come into our bedroom in the middle of the night to tell us that he or she is afraid. The reason for the fear may not always be the same, but there is one detail that never varies: the fear is never accompanied by happiness.

So what do we make of this verse? The key is the meaning of the word “fear.” Numerous passages in Scripture exhort us to fear the Lord. Numerous passage describe the fear of the Lord. A detailed study of what is meant by “the fear of the Lord” would take more time and work than this blog was designed for. However, the verse does give us what we need in order to make sense of this usage of that phrase.

Blessed is the man who fear the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments. If you have been around PBF for long, you’ve heard me talk about Hebrew parallelism, a literary device in Hebrew poetry where subsequent lines contrast, build upon, explain, or restate a previous line. In this case the second half of the verse is explaining or restating the phrase “who fear the LORD.” Whatever else "the fear of the Lord" may entail, we know by this verse that it includes greatly delighting in the Lord’s commandments. So, happy is the man who fears the Lord, that is, the man who greatly delights in his commandments. The rest of the psalm details how that plays out in the man’s life.

I’m not going to go through the whole psalm now, but I would like to delve into v7: He is not afraid of bad news; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD.

Everybody is afraid of bad news, aren’t they? Many of us spend significant portions of our waking hours being afraid of bad news. It’s called anxiety. We worry about things that may happen to us or those we love. But this psalm would tell us that not everybody is afraid of bad news…not the person who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments.

Someone who delights in the Lord’s commandments is someone who obeys those commandments, who walks in fellowship with God, and who therefore knows what kind of God the Lord is. The one who fears the Lord is a person who has experienced the blessings that God promises to those who love Him. He knows the mighty deeds that God has done to save His people. In fact, the previous psalm, Psalm 111, which declares the greatness of His works, is believed by many scholars to be intentionally connected to Psalm 112. Psalm 111:7 declares, The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. That is why the man who fears the Lord does not fear bad news. He knows that God is always faithful.

And notice that Psalm 112 does not say that the man who fears the Lord never receives bad news. Everyone receives bad news, including those who fear God. The difference is that when bad news comes, “his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD.”

It could rightly be said that the antidote to the fear of the unknown is the fear of the Lord, if we understand fearing the Lord to mean delighting in His Word. It is there we find what God requires of us, what He has done to save us, and what He supplies to enable us to endure difficult times.

You may be experiencing anxiety right now. You may be dealing with a severe trial and you don’t know how it is going to end, or if it will end. The key to walking through that trial with joy rather than despair is to cling to the Lord in His Word, to delight in His commandments. Trace the works of God through the Old and New Testaments, the deeds that He has accomplished in order to save His people from foreign oppressors, from hunger and thirst, from slavery, from sin, and from His own righteous wrath. Be reminded of the greatest demonstration of His love, the giving of His Son for us while we were still sinners. He is always faithful. Discipline your mind to dwell on these things rather than the possibility of bad news.

In the end, for the redeemed there is no such thing as truly devastating news. God has saved us from eternity in hell and made us fellows heirs with His Son. Truly, happy is the man who fears the Lord.

Was Jesus really tempted?

2011-09-08T11:04:00.001-04:00

I recently had a conversation with someone about thetemptation of Jesus. This personclaimed that Jesus could havesinned. I asked him what made himthink so. He replied, “Otherwise,His obedience was meaningless.”

This is not an uncommon contention. Some believe that in order for Jesus’resistance of temptation to be genuine and meaningful, He had to have beencapable of sinning. The thought isthat if Jesus could not sin, then He has not really experiencedtemptation. He didn’t sin becauseHe couldn’t sin.

However, as we saw in great detail a couple of weeks ago in Matthew 4during the temptation in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted. Verse 1 of that chapter told us, ThenJesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Pretty clear. The purpose for His going into the wilderness was to betempted. And we looked at how eachof those specific temptations would have pulled at Jesus’ humanity. For example, Jesus was really hungry,having fasted for 40 days. Thetemptation to turn stones into bread was real. His flesh longed for that food. But He resisted the temptation.

Another classic text on the genuineness of Christ’stemptation is Hebrews 4:15-16: For we donot have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but onewho in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us thenwith confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy andfind grace to help in time of need.

Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are. There really isn’t any wiggle roomthere. There are two phrases herethat close the door on any claim that Jesus was not really tempted. First, “in every respect.” This doesn’t necessarily mean thatJesus was tempted with every specific temptation possible. Certainly, there are some temptationsthat wouldn’t apply to Him, like a woman’s temptation to resist her husbands authority. However, Jesus was tempted in a generalway to resist authority – the authority of the Father. We could say that “in every respect”means in every area of life. Thesecond important phrase is “as we are.” He was tempted as we are. He did not have any special help or leg up that we do not have. He felt the true weight of temptationas we do.

Verses 15-16 also tell us why the reality of this temptationis import. Without Jesusexperiencing real temptation, He could not be a high priest sympathetic withour weaknesses. He would not beable to help us in time of need. Therefore, we would not be able to draw near with confidence to thethrone of grace. Christ’s officeas our great high priest depended upon His enduring genuine temptation andperfectly resisting it. This isthe unmistakable conclusion of the writer of Hebrews. Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are, yet withoutsin. Therefore, we can draw near tothis high priest to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

So there can be no question that Jesus really experiencedgenuine temptation. Yet, we haveJames 1:13, which would seem to claim the opposite: Let no one say when heis tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be temptedwith evil, and he himself tempts no one. Jesus is God. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Jesus is the exact representation of thenature of the Father. So do wehave a biblical contradiction on our hands? Strictly speaking, no. The Bible does not say, “Jesus was tempted” and “Jesus was not tempted,”which would be a contradiction if “Jesus” and “tempted” were being used in bothsentences in the exact same sense. The Bible does give us four propositions:

1) Jesuswas tempted.

2) Jesuswas fully man.

3) Jesuswas fully God.

4) Godcannot be tempted.

Wayne Grudem offers an attempt to use these propositions toanswer the question of whether Christ could have sinned. I’ll quote him at length here.

1) " IfJesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature,then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam andEve. It would have been free fromsin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature hadexisted by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesuscould have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin.

2) ButJesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, heexisted as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed unitedin one person.

3) Althoughthere were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesusexperienced in his human nature alone and were not experienced in his divinenature, nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that wouldapparently have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had sinned, it would have involved both hishuman and divine natures.

4) Butif Jesus as a person had sinned, involving both his human and divine natures insin, then God himself would have sinned, and he would have ceased to be God.Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God’snature.

5) Therefore,if we are asking if it was actuallypossible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it wasnot possible. The union of hishuman and divine natures in one person prevented it."[1]

The question still remains though, “how could Jesus'temptations have been real if He was not able to sin?” Dr. Bruce Ware has a great illustrationfor this.

Imagine a swimmer is going to swim the English Channel. A boat will trail him by a few yardsjust in case he experiences cramps or some other problem. In the event that the boat is needed,it will be there to prevent the swimmer from drowning. So the swimmer swims. And swims. And swims. Exhausted, he eventually reaches the other side of the Channel under hisown power.

Imagine if someone on the shore made the ridiculous claim,“You only made it across the Channel because that boat was behind you.” The swimmer would undoubtedly bebothered by this since the truth would be obvious: he made it across theEnglish Channel not because of the boat behind him, but because he swam.

You see, just because Jesus could not sin does not mean that that is why He did not sin. The reason He did not sin was because He resisted thetemptation. And to claim that Hedid not sin because He could not sin is to denigrate the tenacity with which Heresisted temptation His entire life.

We feel the weightof temptation only until we give in. He experienced the full weightof temptation in an intensity that no one ever has because He upheld the weightof it for 33 years without faltering. And for that reason, He is a great high priest who is able to sympathizewith our weaknesses. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we mayreceive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1994), 538-39.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

The Tempter's Interpretation

2011-09-01T10:41:00.001-04:00

Aswe saw in Matthew 4 last Sunday, the second temptation that Jesus enduredentailed an unlikely figure quoting Scripture. That Satan himself would use theWord of God as a tool of temptation should lead us to be very careful whenlistening to teaching and preaching. Whether or not false teachers believe theyare false teachers, they are out there. 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament warn us aboutfalse teaching, and a component of recognizing false teachingis to understand how the Word should be handled, that is, how to interpret theBible correctly.

Thissecond temptation, found in vv5-7, offers us an opportunity to see thepreeminent false teacher at work. There we find two Scripture quotations, onefrom Satan and one from Jesus. One leading to error and one leading to truth. Thispost will concentrate on Satan's quotation. It will be very instructive to lookat what Satan says, what interpretation he gives it, and how his interpretationfits with the verse in its original context.

Matt4:-56 reads, Then the devil took him tothe holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple

and said to him, "If you are the Son ofGod, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angelsconcerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest youstrike your foot against a stone.'"

Satanis quoting Psalm 91:11-12. How do we know what his interpretation is? By whathe is wanting Jesus to do in response to it (and by how Jesus responds, whichwe covered on Sunday). He is telling Jesus that God has obligated Himself tosave Jesus, therefore, it is okay for Jesus to test God.

Soundslogical, doesn't it? God has said He will do this thing, so why not try it out?If God wasn't willing to do it, He wouldn't have made this promise, right?Satan has Scripture to back him up, doesn't he?

Pretendfor a second that this isn't Satan, but rather a blond-haired, blue-eyed manwith an engaging tone showing not Jesus, but you, from Scripture that somerandom act is acceptable and encouraged. I'm afraid that many people wouldn'tbat an eyelash. Why? Because he's using Scripture.

Sohow does Satan's interpretation fit with its original context? The firstproblem is that Satan omits an entire phrase from the quotation. Psalm91:11-12: For he will command his angelsconcerning you to guard you in all yourways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your footagainst a stone.

Whywould Satan omit this phrase? It is inconvenient for his purposes. This phraseimplies a general protection over all of life. But Satan has presented it as awarrant for a specific act, taking a nosedive off the temple: if you jump, Godhas promised to have angels catch You. The phrase he has omitted doesn't lenditself to that interpretation, so he leaves it out.

Second,the larger context of the Psalm 91, will not allow Satan's interpretation. Idon't want to reproduce the whole chapter here, but I would encourage you tolook at it. The gist of the chapter is that God is a shelter from danger. Thewriter mentions a number of things from which God will protect him: snares,pestilence, terror at night, arrows by day, lions, and cobras. All of these aredangers that bring themselves upon the writer. They are not dangeroussituations into which the writer can throw himself and expect protection. Thischapter is not an invitation to live recklessly or to test God. It is simply anassurance that God will shield from danger the one who trusts Him. It iscertainly not a mandate to intentionally put oneself in danger, demanding thatGod come to the rescue.

ThatSatan quoted Scripture should be striking. It should be even more striking thathe is using it in an attempt to produce sin. It issobering to think that what Satan has done here is something that happens allover the place every Sunday. No, the intent is not the same, but the treatmentof the Word is. Many preachers and teachers are doing through negligence whatSatan did on purpose. So we need to be discerning as we listen to preaching andteaching.

Butthere is a second reason to take note of this. Most of us are regularly in a position to speak the truth to family, friends, and neighbors. We may useScripture to encourage, comfort, or admonish each other. When we do this, in alimited sense, we are teaching.Accordingly, we need to be very careful to not take Scripture out of context ormold it to fit some particular set of circumstances.

Maythe Lord build us up in His Word and in the knowledge of how to handle itrightly, so that we will not fall prey to false teaching or pass iton to those we love.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Atheism and Morality

2011-08-25T14:43:00.000-04:00

Numerous times on Sunday mornings we have had occasion to take a look at Romans 1. I’ve noted more than once that “there is no such thing as a true atheist.” vv18-20 reveal that God has made Himself known to man through the things that He has made, so that man is without excuse for not worshiping Him. In spite of this, man seeks to suppress that knowledge of God.

So everyone knows that there is a God. And even the self-proclaimed atheist demonstrates this everyday. One of the clearest ways is through living his life presupposing absolute moral standards. Though he may deny they exist, he lives as if there is objective good and evil. And he is right to do so – it is patently self-evident that objective morality exists.

But what do we mean by objective? When we say that something is objective we mean that it is independent of what people think or perceive.

Here’s an example. I love olive loaf. Always have. (For some reason, its getting harder and harder to find, though.) Let’s say I go to the deli and ask for a pound of olive loaf. The gentleman behind the counter is going to cut slices of olive loaf for me and weigh it on a scale. That scale is going to measure the weight of the meat based on an objective standard: a pound is 16 ounces. It will do me no good to say to the olive loaf man, “that doesn’t look like a pound to me.” It doesn’t work that way; a pound is 16 ounces, regardless of anyone’s opinion. We presuppose such objective standards all the time.

Likewise, there is an objective standard of good and evil, a standard which we presuppose all the time. For example, we would say that the actions committed by Jeffrey Dahmer – which included drugging 17 men and boys, sexually assaulting them, strangling them, skinning them, dismembering them, keeping their heads and hands in the freezer, making hamburgers out of their flesh, and eating them – we would look at those things and say, “that is evil,” even if Jeffrey Dahmer thought it was good. Evil is evil regardless of anyone’s opinion.

There is also an objective standard of good. We recognize that saving a child from starvation is good. It is good whether or not anyone believes it to be so. We recognize good and evil because there is an objective standard of good and evil, which we presuppose, or assume, in our daily lives. The question is what is the foundation for that objective standard?

The Bible teaches that God Himself is the unchanging, universal, objective, and absolute standard of morality. God created man in His own image (Gen 1:27). In doing that, He wrote His law, which is an expression of His own moral character, on the heart of man, in the form of the conscience (Rom 2:14-16). Everyone intuitively knows right from wrong, because everyone has a conscience because everyone is created in the image of God. Without God, there would be no objective standard of morality.

When the atheists decry something or someone as immoral or evil, what basis do they have for doing that? I would propose that they have no basis for doing that, at least no basis consistent with their materialistic worldview. They are forced to work within the framework of naturalistic evolution, where there are no immaterial values. There are just genes, which program organisms to do whatever necessary to survive and propagate the species.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous and ardent atheists of our day, recognizes this when he says, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference… We are machines for propagating DNA… It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”[1] In other words, Dawkins follows his worldview to its logical conclusion: evolution provides no objective standard for good and evil.

So how does he explain morality? Essentially, Dawkins says that our morality has its roots in evolution, but he admits that the morality based on evolution is inadequate to ground the moral norms of modern society. But this begs the question: if evolution provides no objective standard for good and evil, how does he know it’s inadequate? You see, he cannot account for an objective standard, but he can’t reason without one.

Dawkins recognizes this is a problem and so he declares that now our morality can be described as a “changing moral zeitgeist.” That is, what is right and wrong in society is the result of a mysterious consensus that shifts over time. In other words, what is good and evil is good and evil because we all agree about it. Dawkins further says that this consensus moves in a consistent direction that most of us would judge to be an improvement. But again, that begs the question: an improvement according to what standard? If good and evil are a matter of consensus, how can we say that one consensus is better than another consensus since the consensus itself is what determines what is good? If Dawkins was being consistent, he wouldn’t say that any morality is better or worse than any other, he would just call them different.

The notion of morality by consensus becomes obviously preposterous when we apply it to real life. According to Dawkins’ theory, what Jeffrey Dahmer did was evil because of some mysterious ballot box – it is a consensus that such things are evil. And it is conceivable that the consensus will shift over time such that there may be a day in the future when people will look back on Dahmer’s actions and think, “What a fine young man.” But that’s crazy.

Further, a “changing moral zeitgeist” cannot explain the outrage that all people – including atheists – express over the rape, torture, and murder of a child. How does the average person react over such events? “Hey, you shouldn’t do that…it’s contrary to the consensus”? NO! We are outraged because we know intuitively that such things are objectively EVIL!

There must be an objective, absolute standard of morality. Otherwise any kind of moral judgment is completely groundless. The atheist’s problem is that he cannot account for that objective standard within his own worldview. But if you read closely the writings of prominent atheists, you will notice that they cannot do without it.

So even when an atheist claims that the God of the Bible is evil, a God whom he claims does not even exist, he presupposes an objective standard of morality that only the existence of God can explain.

[1]Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1995) 132-33.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Singing to Build Up

2011-08-20T10:26:00.002-04:00

I wanted to share an excellent, brief blog here. Please take a look and come prepared to sing tomorrow!

Posted by Brian Jonson

Persuading the Sinner and Trusting the Spirit

2011-08-12T13:37:00.000-04:00

I spent last week in an apologetics summer class studying atheism. To prepare, we were required to read a number of atheistic books to become familiar with the most common objections to theism in general and Christianity in particular. As I worked my way through this material over the last couple of months, I became confident that I could handle these objections if given the opportunity. Their arguments are so clearly self-serving and inconsistent that I believed it would be quite simple to take such a skeptic and demonstrate to him the incoherence of his worldview.

At the same time, I wondered what real use there is in dialoguing with an unregenerate person about the problem of evil or contesting the supposed “contradictions” in the Bible. The gospel is the power of God for salvation. Doesn’t it make more sense to just give them the gospel message and walk away, allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest?

Both of these thoughts – the necessity to defend the faith and the conviction that only the Spirit can persuade a heart – were swirling around in my head on Wednesday afternoon, as the professor had arranged for three people from a local association of atheists to come and speak to the class. All three of the atheists grew up in religious homes, and yet their paths to outspoken atheism couldn’t have been more different.

“Pete” was raised in a Southern Baptist church with a high view of the Bible. However, when he graduated from high school and went to college, he began to notice “contradictions” in the Bible. Unable to reconcile them, he decided Scripture was a human invention, and he eventually rejected the idea of God altogether.

“Dave” grew up in a devout Catholic home. According to him, “Catholics don’t read the Bible,” so the contradictions that plagued Pete were no issue for him. Dave was a lover of Greek mythology and began to read the Bible as just another source of ancient literature. He associated the God of the Bible with the Greek gods and for that reason assumed Him to be fictional as well.

“Jim” not only grew up in church, but he also attended Boyce College (the undergraduate school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) with the intent to go on to seminary and earn a Masters degree in Biblical counseling. He was a small group leader in one of the most solid churches in Louisville, KY. As he studied theology, he found himself struggling with the doctrine of hell. He could not accept the idea that a God of love would send His creatures to hell for eternity. He turned away from the faith and shortly decided that there was no God at all.

The three of them were well aware of all the arguments for theism as well as the evangelical responses to all of their objections. They understood and yet they didn’t understand. We spent two and a half hours interacting with these folks, and the whole time I had these competing drives in my heart – a strong desire to persuade them of the truth and at the same time the desire to leave them to the work of the Spirit. I was trying to decide which was the more biblical disposition.

But as I processed the encounter later, I realized that those two desires, if rightly held and understood, were not contradictory. They were complimentary drives, both necessary if I am to be faithful to the Word.

Indeed, only the Holy Spirit can convert a sinner. The lost person is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1), enslaved to sin (John 8:34), unable to understand the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), and incapable of submitting to the law of God (Rom 8:7-8). Given the total depravity of man and his inability to will himself to understanding and faith, the strongest powers of human persuasion are woefully inadequate to transfer one lost sinner from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of the beloved Son. The Holy Spirit alone is the one who regenerates (Titus 3:5), who gives life (John 6:63), who removes the veil so that the sinner beholds the glory of the Lord (2 Cor 3:16-18), who gives spiritual understanding (1 Cor2:12), and who imparts saving repentance and faith (Eph 2:8-10). Try as I might, I cannot in my own power persuade someone to come to Christ.

However, I must not allow that conviction to lead me to despair of any participation in the apologetic/evangelistic task. Clearly, the church’s ministry and proclamation of the truth are the means used by the Spirit to turn sinners into saints (Mat28:19-20). Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate to have a strong desire to persuade the lost of the truth of the gospel. So strong was Paul’s desire to see his fellow Jews converted that he was willing to give up his own salvation that they might be joined to Christ (Rom 9:1-3). Acts 18 tells us that it was his custom to “reason” in the synagogues every Sabbath, trying to persuade the Jews and the Greeks. Concerning his time in Ephesus, Acts 19:8 notes that “he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.”

Further, we have been given an explicit Scriptural mandate in 1 Peter 3:15 to always be prepared to give a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in us. To take a hands-off approach is to disregard a biblical imperative. As our society becomes more and more secularized, it becomes more crucial that the church be able to meet the challenges that come against the validity of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ.

So, this understanding – that I am to give myself to the task of lovingly spreading the truth and that the Holy Spirit alone can cause a sinner to come to life – calls me to what kind of action? Two things. I should diligently prepare myself to share the gospel and to answer the typical objections to the faith, and I should pray fervently that the Spirit would use me as a vessel and prepare the hearts of those with whom I will have the opportunity to interact. We must pursue these two things with great tenacity. We must love the lost enough to struggle hard against their unbelief, all the while trusting in the power of the Spirit alone to raise them from death to life.

May the Lord give us all more opportunities to speak the gospel to the lost. And when those opportunities come, may we have well-prepared minds, soft hearts, and worn out knees.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Overview of Matthew, Pt4

2011-07-21T13:42:00.000-04:00

(If you have not read the previous posts in this series, you can find them here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3)

A fourth theme to look for in the book of Matthew is the “kingdom.” Matthew is the only one of the Gospel writers who uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven”, and he does so 32 times. Thirteen times he uses the word “kingdom” by itself, and five times he uses the phrase “kingdom of God.”

So what does Matthew mean when he uses these phrases?

First, the kingdom refers to the kingship, rule, or authority of God. The primary meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek words for kingdom is “the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king.”[1] When we use the word “kingdom” in our modern context, we may mean the realm over which a king exercises authority or the people who belong to that realm, but in biblical usage, these meanings are secondary. Kingdom refers first and foremost to the authority to rule.

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray in Matthew 6:7-13, one of the petitions is “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” What is being sought in the request for His kingdom to come? The answer is the following phrase, “your will be done.” The petition seeks that the Lord’s rulership would extend to earth as it does heaven, since now the ruler of this world is the devil (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:8-11).

This kingship of God is a rule that will be bestowed upon Christ. Jesus predicts in 16:28, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This makes only makes sense if we think of kingdom as kingship. This rule of Christ is also why we find so many references in the book to Christ’s authority. He taught with uncommon authority (7:29). He had authority to forgive sins (9:6). He was able to give authority to his disciples to preach, heal, and cast out demons (10:1). And finally, after His resurrection, He said to His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (28:18).

That being said, any meaningful reign does have a realm. The second way “kingdom” is used in Matthew refers to the realm in which God’s reign may be experienced. So is this a future kingdom or present kingdom?

Several references indicate that the kingdom is present or, at the very least, imminent. The very first message of the kingdom comes from John the Baptist in ch3, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus echoes this message in 4:17 and commands His disciples to do the same in 10:7. Most of Jesus’ parables in Matthew place the kingdom in the present, each being introduced by the words, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” (13:31, 44, 45, 47; 20:1).

There is also evidence that the kingdom of heaven represents a present blessing of true disciples. The Beatitudes (5:2-10) tell us of such blessings, with the kingdom of heaven being the only one not spoken of as a future blessing. This section of text begins and ends with “…for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” while all the others use future tense verbs: “…they shall be comforted…they shall inherit the earth…they shall be satisfied…they shall receive mercy…they shall see God…they shall be called sons of God.”

Further, Jesus declares in 12:28, “…the kingdom of God has come upon you.” So the kingdom should rightly be understood as a present reality. But…

There are numerous references in Matthew that would indicate that the kingdom of heaven is a distant future reality, a reality that comes at the end of the age. For example, in 8:11, Jesus says that in the kingdom of heaven, many will come from the east and west and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Clearly, this must be a heavenly gathering since Jesus was saying this almost two millennia after the patriarchs’ deaths.

One parable, the parable of the ten virginss, in 25:1-13 puts the sets the kingdom in the future: “For the kingdom of heaven will be like…” In Christ’s prediction of the judgment of the nations in 25:31-46, He states that the inheritance of the kingdom will come after the Son of Man comes in His glory.

So what are we to make of all this? George Eldon Ladd is helpful here: “Fundamentally, as we have seen, the Kingdom of God is God’s sovereign reign; but God’s reign expresses itself in different stages throughout redemptive history. Therefore, men may enter into the realm of God’s reign in its several stages of manifestation and experience the blessings of His reign in differing degrees. God’s Kingdom is the realm of the Age to Come, popularly called heaven; then we shall realize the blessings of His Kingdom (reign) in the perfection of their fullness. But the Kingdom is here now. There is a realm of spiritual blessing into which we may enter today and enjoy in part but in reality the blessings of God’s Kingdom (reign).”[2]

So the kingdom is a reality that we look forward to in the second coming of Christ, but it is also a reality now in the blessings of Christ’s rule over our lives. Christ is a king. He came to rule in the hearts of men.

We will spend time looking at this wonderful theme in our text for this Sunday’s message, 3:1-12.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

[1]George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 19.

[2]Ladd, 22-23.

Overview of Matthew, Pt3

2011-07-14T13:58:00.000-04:00

(If you have not read the first two posts in this series, you can find them here and here.)

A third theme that we find in the book of Matthew could best be described by a phrase in Romans 1:16: …to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Matthew has the distinction of being the most Jewish of the Gospels while at the same time showing the most overt references to Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom of God. There almost seems to be a contradiction between the two facets, with some texts indicating that the gospel of the kingdom is exclusive to the Jews and others showing that this hope extends to the Gentiles, too.

In this post, first we’ll identify some of these conflicting features, then attempt to show how these things fit together.

That the book was written with the Jew in mind is clear. As noted in the last post in this series, the very first chapter seeks to demonstrate that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The genealogy in ch1 shows that Christ is a direct descendant of Abraham and David. Vv22-23 claim that His birth fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. In all, there are twenty times that Matthew shows Christ fulfilling portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Such citations would not be nearly as meaningful to a Gentile audience.

But there are two passages in the book that explicitly show that the Gospel of the Kingdom is an exclusive blessing for the Jews. The first of these is Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…” Earlier in the chapter, Jesus gave His disciples authority over unclean spirit and power to heal every disease and affliction, authority and power that Jesus then reserves for the benefit of the Jews.

In ch15, we find this account: 21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.”
23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

So here a second time, Jesus makes it clear that the blessings of the kingdom belong to the Jews. However, elsewhere in the book there are both hints and strong statements about Gentile inclusion.

First of all, the genealogy at the beginning of the book includes two Gentile women, Rahab and Ruth. The inclusion of these two is not necessary, as these genealogies typically only included men. Second, in ch2, the only people who come to worship the young Christ are the wise men from the east, Gentiles. All the rest of the people in the chapter are Jews, and their responses range from indifference to murderous intent.

Third, there is an explicit reference to Christ offering hope to the Gentiles in 12:18-21 as a fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah:

18 "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; 20 a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory;
21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope."

Further, in 21:18-22:14, Matthew includes a triad of parables predicting the demise of the Jewish leadership. A theme verse for this section is found in the parable of the tenants in 21:41, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their season.” Also, in ch25, it is shown that the Son of Man will separate the sheep and the goats among “all the nations.”

So how are we to understand this? Is the gospel of the kingdom only for the Jews or for the Gentiles as well? Romans 1:16, which I mentioned earlier, is a good help here. The whole verse reads, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. In Jesus' earthly ministry, His first priority was to take the gospel of the kingdom to God’s covenant people, Israel. That is the reason for the exclusive language in Matthew, particularly in the first part of the book.

There is a turning point in ch12 that sheds light on this. Prior to ch12, all of Jesus teaching is very clear. He uses no mysterious language, just straightforward instruction. However, neither this teaching nor Jesus’ many miracles convinced the Jews of their need to repent and come to Him. In ch12, after a series of hostile encounters between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, the Jews decide they have had enough: But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him (12:14). It is in the very next chapter, that Jesus begins to speak in parables. When His disciples ask Him for the reason for the change in His teaching, He replies, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given…This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand…” (13:12-14).

The Jews had rejected Jesus and His subsequent teaching was intentionally hidden from them. This explains the later parables that describe the downfall of the Jewish leaders. The Kingdom would be given to others. All of this prepares for the Great Commission after Christ’s resurrection in Matt 28, in which He commands the disciples to make disciples of “all nations.”

Paul describes this dynamic in Romans 11, describing the Jews as the original branches of the olive tree. These original branches were broken off because of their unbelief, so that the wild branches (Gentiles) might be grafted in. However, if those original branches do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted back in.

So Matthew reflects this plan of taking the gospel of the kingdom to the Jew first, and after the Jews rejected Christ, the gospel was to be taken to the Gentiles. What a blessing that though we are not biologically descended from Abraham, though we are not ethnic Jews, we have become fellow partakers of the promise through faith in Christ (Eph 3:1-6).

In the wisdom of God, the Jewish rejection of the Christ was the catalyst that the Father used to propel the Son to the cross, that He might become the propitiation for the sins not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek. Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God… (Rom 11:33-36).

Posted by Greg Birdwell

New Testament manuscripts - unique in the world

2011-07-10T19:30:00.006-04:00

My series on how we got the Bible has been delayed much more than I had hoped, so if you are just joining this series you really need to go back to the beginning. Click here to see the first article, which lays the foundation.

As Christians, we claim our New Testament letters are inspired by God and accurate. We stake our beliefs, even our lives, on this assertion. As we've seen in this series, God spoke clearly, He spoke inerrently, He used language that was commonly understood and He has preserved it. In this article, I want to give you confidence that the English Bible we have today is trustworthy. I want to refute those who claim the Bible was modified so much that it can no longer be said to be accurate at all. Sadly, this latter claim is even held by professing Christians who have been swayed by liberal theology.

Thankfully, we have science and evidence on our side. Anyone who takes an honest look at the manuscript evidence must admit the New Testament is unique among all books of antiquity.

The NT letters were written by hand during a time when there was no way to mass produce documents. The materials used were perishable. The political/cultural climate was volatile. Recall that Paul, who wrote a fourth of the twenty-seven NT books, was severely persecuted by Jews and Romans alike. His letters came from prison in some cases. When Peter wrote one of his epistles, he used the code name "Babylon" to identify his location. There is no evidence that he ever actually visited Babylon. This was a difficult time.

Also, there seemed to be an understanding on the part of the early Christian congregations that the letters from Paul, Peter, James, etc., were inspired and of supreme importance. The evidence for this is the fact that copies were made in abundance. And, not just a handful. Thousands.

F.E. Peters states "on the basis manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians' New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity." (Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism, page 50. 1971). Even today's most vocal critics of the Bible, if honest, will admit to this fact. In a recent debate with James White, Bart Ehrman, noted NT professor and apostate to Christianity, admitted that there is no greater attestation in pre-Gutenberg bibliography than the NT letters. Just how prevalent are these manuscripts?

As of this time we have found 5,656 partial or complete manuscript copies in the Greek language. These range from the second to the fifteenth centuries. If you add the Latin copies, the number jumps to over 10,000 more. Broaden the scope to include other manuscript copies or partial copies, made by hand, in all languages, and you'll arrive at 24,970 manuscripts. These include Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian, Syriac Pashetta, Arabic, Bhairic, and others.

How significant is this?

Well, it is of supreme importance for two reasons:

1) There are no original manuscripts that have ever been found. Therefore, reconstructing our NT is only possible by using copies.

Obviously, the more copies one has the more accurate the translated work will be. In the excellent reference work, A General Introduction to the Bible, Norm Geisler and William Nix state it is possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy due to abundant manuscript copies (see page 386).

The former director and principal librarian of the British Museum said this:

...besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors...In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written int he latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century-say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death. -- Kenyon, Frederic G. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Macmillan and Company, 1901.

Besides Sophocles, what other ancient works can be compared with our New Testament?

Actually, none. There are no works that begin to approach the manuscript evidence of our NT.

The closest is Homer's Iliad.

Homer wrote the Iliad in B.C. 800. The first copies were made 400 years later. Four hundred years later!! Additional copies were made and now the count stands at 643. These are the extant, hand-written, pre-printing press copies. The New Testament has over 24,000.

Other books of antiquity are Herodotus' History, written between 480 and B.C. 425. There are 8 known copies. How about Tacitus' Annals? Written in A.D. 100, there are only 20 copies. And, the earliest was made around 1100.

Do you now see why it is not of consequence that the original manuscripts have been lost? We are able to reconstruct God's word with these copies. Bruce Metzer said this:

The works of several ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission. For example, the compendious history of Rome by Valleius Paterculus survived to modern times in only one incomplete manuscript, from which the "editio princeps" was made - and this lone manuscript was lost in the seventeenth century after being coped by Beautus Rhenanus at Amerbach. Even the "Annals" of the famous historian Tacitus is extant, so far as the first six books are concerned, in but a single manuscript, dating from the ninth century. In 1870 the only known manuscript of the "Epistle to Diognetus", an early Christian composition which editors usually include in the corpus of Apostolic Fathers, perished in a fire at the municipal library in Strasbourg. In contrast with these figures, the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material. -- Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

There is an interesting organization called the "International Organization for Standardization." This organization is responsible for a plethora of standards, ranging from the way information technology systems interconnect to the distance between railroad rails. If this Geneva-based organization suddenly dissolved, and all records and archives were lost, we could still continue on with the standards that are in place, because there are so many examples already in use.

Because the NT letters were copied so rapidly by so many Christians, and likewise shared with other congregations in other cities and nations where they were copied again, we are able to essentially recreate exactly what was first penned.

2) Reliance on copies rather than original autographs should increase our confidence in God's word.

Some people struggle with the idea that none of the original manuscripts survived. If God took the time to inspire His word, why didn't He ensure they would never be lost?

Let me set up a hypothetical for you...

Let's say the original authors locked up their first letters and kept them all these centuries. Do you actually believe this would give you greater confidence in them? I say it would have the opposite effect. How could you say with certainty the documents weren't altered by someone? How would you know a controlling authority or group didn't steal them, change them and replace them without being detected? After all, there were no security cameras or biometric security devices 1800 years ago. God's way of preserving is so much better.

Just as the wind blows particles of sand so that they can never be collected, the New Testament copies spread with such speed and distance there was no possible way anyone could control them. All the conspiracy theorists and liberal theologians who love to claim the Bible was changed by various groups have no evidence for their claims. God's way of transmission was providential; He controlled His word.

So, do all of these thousands of copies say exactly the same thing? Are there no differences in text? No, they aren't exactly the same and yes, there are differences. In fact, some scholars claim these differences number in the hundreds of thousands. Does this mean we do not, in fact, have a claim that the scripture is true?

Not at all.

My next article will explore textual variations and why they actually help the doctrine of preservation.

Overview of Matthew, Pt 2

2011-07-07T16:55:00.000-04:00

Have you ever discovered a word that you had never heard before, and then suddenly you seem to hear it all the time? I’ve had that experience numerous times and each time I recognize that it can’t possibly be the case that the word was just invented. It must have been around all along, but I hadn’t noticed it.

You may have had that experience with the Bible. There are themes there that we can pass by unknowingly for years. Then when our attention is called to it, we seem to see it all over the Bible.

There are several such themes in the book of Matthew that would be beneficial for us to recognize now before we begin our study of the book toward the end of this month. If we go into the study aware of these themes, we will recognize them more readily and be able to see how Matthew is weaving the narrative together to accomplish the purpose of his Gospel.

Any list of the “most important” themes is going to be somewhat subjective, so I cannot claim that my list is in any way inspired. I will just note that in my opinion these are the most obvious and most important.

1. The Identity of Christ – Matthew will take great care in establishing who Jesus is. The first several chapters serve to demonstrate Christ’s credentials before we ever hear Him speak. However, this demonstration does not stop after these initial chapters, but precedes through the rest of the book.

The author accomplishes this in at least two ways. First, he establishes who Jesus is through the titles assigned to Him. In the very first verse of the book, He is called Jesus Christ, which is the Greek word for “messiah.” A Jewish audience would have recognized right away that a major claim was being made about this Jesus – He is the Messiah of the Old Testament, the fulfillment of the promised restoration and salvation of God’s people. Later in the first chapter, He is called Immanuel, the “with us God.” In 2:2, the wise men identify Him as the king of the Jews. Eight times, He is identified as the Son of God.[1] This designation is verified by God Himself both at Jesus’ baptism (3:17, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”) and the Transfiguration (17:5, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him”). He is called the Son of Man 30 times.[2]

Second, Matthew establishes who Jesus is through what He does. Jesus fulfills all righteousness (3:15), defeats the devil (4:1-11), fulfills the Law (5:17), teaches with authority (7:29), cleanses lepers (8:1-4), heals the sick (8:14-17), calms the sea (8:18-22), casts out demons (8:28-34), forgives sin (9:1-8), grants authority (10:1), heals on the Sabbath (12:1-14), feeds the crowds (14:13-21), walks on water (14:22-33), challenges legalism (15:1-9), builds the Church (16:13-20), foretells His own death (16:21-23), cleanses the temple (21:12-17), condemns the hypocrites (23:1-36), predicts the eschaton (24-25), institutes a new covenant (26:26-29), suffers silently (27:11-14), dies on the cross (27:50), rises from the dead (28:1-10), and commission the spread of the gospel to all nations (28:18-20).

All of these titles and actions proclaim the same message. This is the Son of God.

2. Fulfillment of the Old Testament – Matthew vigorously quotes the Old Testament, presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of the hopes and promises of the Old Testament. He does this in at least three ways. First, He is the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecy. Twenty times, Matthew cites specific OT references as being fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Ten of these are unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Five are in the first two chapters alone. These fulfillments took place all the way from His conception (1:22-23) to His Passion (27:9).

Second, Jesus fulfills the Law. The most explicit reference to this is found in the Sermon on the Mount in 5:17-19: “ Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

In the section that follows, Jesus corrects various misinterpretations of the Law and calls His disciples to obey the spirit of the Law. He also condemns the Pharisees for elevating the traditions of the elders to the same level as Scripture (15:1-9).

Third, He serves as the anti-type of Israel, succeeding where Israel failed. For example, from the end of ch2 through ch4, Jesus follows the same path as the Jews, coming out of Egypt, going through a body of water, and entering the wilderness for testing. In the temptation narrative in particular, Jesus is tempted in the same ways Israel was, yet He obeys where they did not.

This theme demonstrates that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s grand plan, the culmination of salvation history. He has brought salvation to God’s people.

We will look at the other major themes next time. If you are reading through Matthew yourself, look for these two themes as you go.

[1] Matt. 4:3,6; 8:29; 14:33; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54

[2] Matt. 8:20;9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28;20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64

Overview of Matthew

2011-06-30T15:46:00.000-04:00

Lord willing, we have three weeks left in our study of the book of Judges. It has been a long and convicting road, as we have seen in the example of Israel the propensity of the human heart to follow after false gods. As Israel’s journey into apostasy has been portrayed, we have had numerous opportunities to examine our own hearts to see if there are signs of “Canaanization” there. With each passing week, the message of the book becomes more clear: man is utterly depraved and needs a Savior.

Judges is certainly not the only Old Testament book that points forward to a future Savior. There are pictures of human depravity and God’s provision for salvation in virtually every book. The voice of the entire Old Testament announces man’s dire situation and the divine promise of rescue.

In our next expositional series, we will walk through the New Testament book of Matthew. This first Gospel offers a fitting answer to the message of Judges: the promised Savior has come.

To prepare for this series, I’m going to do a short series of blog posts, giving an overview of the book, its authorship, structure, and main themes. It is always important when studying any book of the Bible to get a broad understanding of the overall message of the book before dialing in for closer study. These posts should give us a decent idea of where we are going, so that we can dive into verse-by-verse exposition on July 24. (Let me remind you that I preached through the first 2 chapters of Matthew during the Christmas season of 2010. If you missed those messages, you can find them here. For that reason, we’ll be starting in ch3 on the 24^th.)

AUTHORSHIP

Who wrote Matthew? Some of us are satisfied that it was Matthew since the book is called…Matthew! However, it may surprise some to find out that none of the four canonical Gospels explicitly identify the author. The superscriptions at the beginning of each book (“The Gospel According to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” etc.) were not part of the original, inspired autographs. They were added later, ascribing authorship to those men believed by the early church to have penned the Gospels. But what assurance do we have that the superscription on the book of Matthew is correct?

First of all, there are no competing theories regarding the authorship of Matthew. It has been historically accepted from the oldest available church writings that the author of the first Gospel was the Jewish tax collector and disciple of Christ, Matthew. The earliest of these sources, Papias (A.D. 140) and Irenaeus (A.D. 175), had contact with the apostolic community and would have been familiar with its authorship.

Second, if the early church were going to falsely ascribe the book to someone for the purpose of establishing its credibility, it is unlikely that they would have chosen Matthew. The non-Christian Jewish community to whom the book seems to have been written would have resisted a work written by a former tax collector. Further, comparatively speaking, Matthew was one of the more obscure of the 12 disciples. If Matthew wasn’t really the author, the church had little to gain from ascribing it to him.

Third, there are several features of the text that point to an author consistent with Matthew’s background. The book was written in Greek, but is full of Hebraisms. Essentially, that means that there are numerous Hebrew idioms and phrases transliterated into Greek. This means that the author needed to have an excellent grasp of the Greek language, while also being well familiar with Jewish customs and scribal traditions. Matthew fits that description as he was a Jewish tax collector for Rome, a vocation that would have demanded an advanced knowledge of Greek.

Matthew is also the only Gospel that records Jesus paying the temple tax. As a tax collector, Matthew would be quite likely to include such a detail. In the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12, the author writes, “Forgive us our debts…” as opposed to Luke’s “Forgive us our sins…” (Luke 11:4). For all of these reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that Matthew was the author.

STRUCTURE

There are numerous ways to view the structure of the book. For example, some prefer to see the book as progressing through Christ’s ministry in specific geographic locations:

1:1-15:20 Work and Teaching in Galilee

15:21-18:35 Work outside Galilee

19:1-28:20 A Journey to and Passion in Jerusalem

This approach is fine, but I think there is another outline that is more helpful in understanding the flow of the book. My preference is to recognize that Matthew is written as a series of alternating narratives (stories) and discourses (teaching):

Ch 1-4 /Narrative/ Intro: main character introduced

Ch 5-7 /Discourse/ Jesus’ demands upon His people

Ch 8-9 /Narrative/ Jesus’ deeds within and for Israel

Ch 10 /Discourse/ Ministry through others’ words and deeds

Ch 11-12 /Narrative/ Israel’s negative response

Ch 13 /Discourse/ Explanation of Israel’s negative response

Ch 14-17 /Narrative/ Founding of the Church

Ch 18 /Discourse/ Teaching for the Church

Ch 19-23 /Narrative/ Commencement of the Passion

Ch 24-25 /Discourse/ The future: judgment and salvation

Ch 26-28 /Narrative/ Conclusion: passion and resurrection

This outline seems to show more clearly how the book progresses, from a gospel that is focused on the people of Israel, to the Jews’ rejection of that gospel, to the creation of the Church through the proclamation of the gospel to all people, Jews and Gentiles.

Next time, we’ll begin looking at some of the main themes of the book. If you can, I would encourage you to take some time to begin reading through this Gospel in anticipation of our study. There is much glorious truth waiting for us there!

A Display of Our Own Sin

2011-06-27T22:15:00.005-04:00

Justin Taylor recounts part of his interview with John Piper in 2005 about the sovereignty of God and the problem of suffering and evil. The excerpt is excellent and I highly recommend it to you. You can read it here.

Although the post deals with suffering and evil two quotes are particularly piercing.

"When Jesus died on the cross, you can come at that in one of two ways. You can say that not only was there Adam and Eve’s sin, which was so evil it brought down the entire universe, but there have been in every one of us ten thousand of those sins."

"I think instead of calling God into question, we should see them [suffering and evil] as evidences in our lives of the outrage of our sin and the horrific evil and repugnance of sin to a holy God. And God is displaying to us the outrage of our sin in the only way that we can see it, because we don’t get upset about our sinning. We only get upset about the hurt. How many of you lose sleep—well, some of you are good saints and you do—over your own fallenness? Most of us get bent out of shape about things that hurt our bodies, but it’s our sins that are the ultimate outrage."

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Rick Jones

Sanctification Saturday (7/9) - Dealing with Depression

2011-06-23T11:09:00.000-04:00

I have a relative (who shall remain nameless…) who at one time had the habit of ignoring the warning lights on the dashboard of his vehicle. When the "check engine" light came on, he assumed the light was malfunctioning, not the corresponding system under the hood. As you might imagine, eventually he found out that the warning light was working just fine. The revelation came in the form of the distinct sound of a rod knocking in the motor.

Of course, I’m not going to cast stones. While I don’t assume that the warning lights on my car are malfunctioning or playing a practical joke on me, I do on occasion tell myself that given enough time, perhaps the problem will “work itself out.”

“The car just needs rest.”

“The light just came on. I’ve got a while before I need to worry about it.”

“Oh, that light came on before and went out by itself. I’ll just watch it for a few days to see if it does that again.”

“The brakes aren’t even grinding yet. The light is overreacting.”

The motive for this kind of rationalization should be obvious. I don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of spending the time and money to have the car checked out and fixed. The problem is that ignoring the lights indefinitely will lead to much more costly trouble than if I had simply heeded the warning in a timely manner.

Humans are hardwired with a number of “warning lights,” and it is common for people to think of these warning lights as problems in themselves rather than indicators of some deeper issue. Anxiety is an example of a typical warning light. It can manifest itself in simple doubtful thoughts or in severe panic attacks. Many times people with anxiety think that anxiety itself is their problem, so they go to a medical doctor or a mental health professional to get a pill to fix that problem.

I certainly agree that there are legitimate medical issues that require such drugs. I’m not anti-drug. What concerns me is the rush to assume that our issues are medical without considering the possibility that the difficulty we are experiencing might be a warning light alerting us to a deeper problem. That assumption can lead to the unnecessary medicating of an issue that is not medical at all.

At our next Sanctification Saturday on July 9, we are going to open the Word and see what it has to teach us about another warning light, depression. Most of us have experienced depression ourselves or have a close loved one who has. Sometimes depression can be the result of something as simple as illness or poor eating and sleeping habits. But God’s Word tells us that there can be other, deeper reasons that our souls are “cast down” with us. If our depression is warning us that there is a deeper issue at work, ignoring it or needlessly medicating it is similar to trying to disconnect an illuminated “check engine” light in the dashboard of our car. We may not see the light on anymore, but that doesn’t mean that the deeper problem has been fixed. The root issue will only continue to deteriorate, leading to greater trouble later on.

Whatever that deeper issue is, there is hope and help in Christ. Through our knowledge of Him, God has granted us everything necessary to be saved and sanctified. If you are dealing with depression or have a loved one who is, please make every effort to be here on July 9, 8:30a-12p. We will be discussing how to determine the root issue and what provisions God has made for dealing with those issues.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2Tim 3:16-17

An Example of Emergent Interpretation, Pt 3

2011-06-16T12:58:00.000-04:00

(If you haven’t read the first two posts in this series, you can find them here and here. For the text of Matthew 5:38-42, click here.)

v41: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”

Remember that in Bell’s mind this means that when a Roman soldier forces you to carry his stuff for one mile, which Bell says was the legal limit, you should continue to carry it past the one mile marker and therefore put the soldier in a position of weakness. You will have forced him to treat you with respect because he needs you to give him back his belongings so that he won’t get in trouble with the government for having someone carry his stuff past the legal limit of one mile.

Two things deserve attention. First, Bell has built his whole interpretation of this passage on the fact that the Romans were an extremely violent culture and that the Jews needed a way to resist in a non-violent manner. But suddenly, when Bell gets to this verse, the Romans have become pacifists. These brutes, whom Bell portrays in his interpretation of v39 as having a penchant for beating Jews, have had a change of heart for no clear reason. Does it make any logical sense that a Roman soldier wouldn't assault a Jew who refused to give him his rightful belongings? Does it make any logical sense that a Roman would allow himself to be forced to say to a Jew, “Please, give me my stuff back”? No, it does not.

Second, how would a third party standing near the one-mile marker know that it was the one-mile marker? (For that matter, how would the Roman or the Jew know? GPS?) In other words, how would anyone know that this Jew had been carrying the Roman’s belongings for more than one mile? If a witness had been on the same road and gone the same distance and therefore knew when the one-mile marker had been past, the witness would also see that the Jew refused to give the Roman his stuff and the violation was therefore not the Roman’s fault. In fact, it would be far more likely that the Jew would be charged with theft, rather than the Roman being charged with forced labor.

So, we’ve seen with each of the three examples Jesus gives illustrating the principle in v39, “do not resist an evil person,” that the verses themselves do not allow Bell’s interpretation. But what about the context? I asked you last time to take a look at v42. Every study I checked shows v42 as a part of the passage we have been talking about. A cursory reading of the text also makes it clear that vv38-42 are one passage. What does v42 tell us?

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Why would Bell leave this verse out of his message? I think the answer is obvious: it ruins his interpretation of the preceding verses. It simply does not fit the idea of asserting your rights against someone else. It runs opposite of Bell’s campaign to force the strong to treat the weak as equals.

Now let’s widen our context a little and look at the preceding sections. First, we have the opening section, the Beatitudes – “blessed are the meek…blessed are those who are persecuted…blessed are the peacemakers.” That doesn’t sound anything like the spirit Bell proposes in his message, which says, “assert yourself and make people stop persecuting you.” Next, we have a series of sections beginning in v21 in which Jesus gives an OT commandment and then proceeds to raise the bar or correct a wrong interpretation of the law, calling on the listener to pay closer attention to the heart issue involved in each commandment and not just the letter of the law. For example, in vv21-22 we read, “You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

Does that sound like something that the people would be cheering about? If you are angry with your brother, you deserve the same punishment as a murderer – does that make you feel good? What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus saying a lot of difficult things. If you lust, you have committed adultery in your heart. If you marry an unlawfully divorced woman, you are an adulterer. If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. Love your enemies. Do not love the things of this world. Do not worry about any of your own needs. Do not judge. The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life. Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To these Rob Bell would add: “Assert yourself and force your enemy to treat you as an equal." "Reclaim your own diginity." "Assume a position of power." "Take the initiative away from your enemy." His interpretation, when viewed from the context of the entire Sermon, sticks out like a sore thumb. It runs counter to everything else Jesus said. It is not just off - it is the exact opposite of what the verses are teaching. The Sermon has absolutely nothing to do with dignity, non-violent resistance, or asserting yourself. It is about selflessness, humility, discipleship, and suffering. But Bell is saying that in a Sermon full of sayings that would be very hard to hear, there are three verses which would really excite the listeners. It doesn't make sense.

What about Jesus’ example? Did He practice what Bell has proposed? No. Jesus consistently put others before Himself and the greatest picture of this is in the Passion. Isaiah 53:7 reads, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.” Jesus was struck repeatedly, and yet He did not assert Himself and force His attackers to treat Him like an equal. His clothes were taken away, leaving Him naked before the world, and yet somehow the Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers were not shamed by it or forced to treat Him with respect.

Scripture never records Jesus living the interpretation that Bell gives. It shows Him doing the opposite. So, if Rob Bell is correct, Jesus is a hypocrite.

Now, how do we know what the right interpretation is? As I alluded to above, in the surrounding context, Jesus repeatedly uses the phrases, “You have heard it said...” and “But I say to you...” He uses these phrases to signal His main points. In the case of our passage, He says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist an evil person.’” That is the main idea - do not resist an evil person. Jesus then illustrates the point with the three examples in vv39-41. There is no reason to try to find a meaning beneath the text of the three examples. Jesus has already told us what He means by the examples - do not resist an evil person. The best understanding of the examples is the straightforward meaning of the words. If someone hits you on your right cheek (whether this is a metaphor for an insult or not), let him hit your left cheek also. If someone sues you for your cloak, give him more than is required - give him your coat, too. If someone forces you to go a mile with him, do more than is required - go with him two. In other words, do not resist an evil person. Then in v42 he recaps the idea of not resisting an evil person.

Hopefully, as we have spent time looking at the Emergent Church, in this series and in our Sunday night teaching series, you have recognized what is at stake. The passage that we have just looked at is from but one sermon. The Emergents are churning out books, magazine articles, video series, podcasts, blogs, and tweets with blinding speed. Whatever their intentions are, they are damaging the true body of Christ by attacking essential doctrines and proposing innovative interpretations of Scripture that abuse the original intent of the author. All of this degrades Christ and erodes our sense of the authority of Scripture. For this reason, we must be discerning about the things we hear, see, and read.

Rob Bell Markets "Love Wins"

2011-06-10T14:16:00.004-04:00

This Sunday evening we will conclude our four-part series on the Emergent Church. In this last session we will examine what the Bible teaches about hell and take a brief look at the book, Love Wins, that prompted the elders to teach this series.

To prepare us for Sunday night and because we will be constrained by time I wanted to share two interviews that Rob Bell gave as his book was released to the public.

Good Morning America

MSNBC

An Example of Emergent Interpretation, Pt 2

2011-06-07T15:54:00.000-04:00

(If you did not read the first post in this series, you can find it here.)

There are two things that might make Rob Bell’s interpretation of Matthew 5:38-41 fascinating. First, no one has ever heard it before. That should always be a red flag. What are the odds that in the 2000-year history of the church someone in modern day Michigan is the first person to have come up with the correct interpretation of this passage? We shouldn’t write it off as impossible, but we also have to recognize that to espouse such an innovative interpretation is to say that Augustine got it wrong. Athanasius got it wrong. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper - all got it wrong! But not Rob Bell.

Second, this interpretation is fascinating and attractive because it brings in a lot of extra-biblical information about 1st century Jewish culture. What we have to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter if every history book in the world says the same thing, if a piece of historical information leads to an interpretation that simply is not allowed by the Biblical text, then the historical information is suspect, not the Holy Scriptures. And that is precisely what we have in this case. In order for Rob Bell's interpretation to be valid, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount must be either thrown out or rewritten. And actually, much of the rest of the NT becomes obsolete because what Bell has proposed here is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures

So, let’s look at the specifics. We’ll start with the text itself, then look at the context.

Bell’s interpretation has problems from the very beginning – v38-39a: “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.”

Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. And yet, Bell’s interpretation could be summed up in the statement, “Here’s how to resist an evil person.” He has made this passage mean precisely the opposite of what it says, which leads me to a rule of thumb that should be obvious: any time a teacher proposes an interpretation that flips the plain meaning of the text on its head, you are probably listening to erroneous teaching.

Things don’t get better for Bell as we move forward – v39b: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Remember Bell’s claim that because it would be improper to use the bathroom hand (left hand) to slap someone, this first slap must be a backhanded slap with the right hand. He further claims that the victim’s turning the other cheek to the attacker would force the attacker to hit him with a closed right fist, and thereby treat the victim as an equal.

This logic has several holes. First, the attacker could simply give an open-handed slap with the palm to the left cheek. Second, since the Romans had such a disdain for the Jews, there is no reason to think that the Romans would have had any qualms about using their bathroom hands to slap the Jews. Third, if the Romans were so prone to gratuitous violence, it is not likely that they would have allowed a lowly Jew to force them to treat the Jews like equals. Fourth, Bell proposes that these masters of brutality have only two ways to hurt people: a backhand and a punch.

What does the text say? “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Couple that with the first half of the verse – “Do not resist an evil person” – and what do you have? You have a verse that tells you not to resist an evil person - when he strikes your right cheek, let him slap the other also. There are some passages in the Bible that are difficult to interpret, but this isn’t one of them.

Verse 40: "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Bell says that this verse is a command to get completely naked and thereby shame the oppressor into treating you like an equal. He sites Gen9:20-25, where Noah’s son Ham sees him naked and is cursed. Bell extrapolates from this that it was more shameful in the Jewish culture to see someone naked than to be seen naked.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, the idea that nakedness was a shame to the viewer and not the naked person doesn't work with the whole counsel of Scripture. While it is true that it was definitely not a good thing to look at another person naked, there is even more biblical evidence that shame was more closely associated with one's own nakedness. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God because they were ashamed by their own nakedness. In Deut 28:48, as God is outlining the consequences of disobedience, one of the things listed is slavery to the enemy in hunger, thirst, and nakedness; that is, nakedness would be a curse for their own sinfulness. Likewise, Isa 47:3 says 'your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed.' There are numerous similar examples. To say that becoming nude in front of someone would put you in a position of power over them is just wrong. To become naked was not a power play but a cause for shame.

Second, Bell assumes that what was true of Jewish culture was also true of the Romans. But even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Roman culture exposes this as ludicrous. This was a culture known for their manifold public bath houses in which men soaked together both nude and partially nude while discussing business. Also, the Romans, who perfected crucifixion, routinely crucified their victims completely nude on crosses positioned right along the major thoroughfares. And don’t forget the ancient Roman art rife with images of the naked body. These were people who had no problem whatsoever with nudity. But Rob Bell contends that a Jew could so shame a Roman by disrobing in front of them that the Roman would be forced to treat them as an equal. It just isn’t plausible.

Again, what does the text say? “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now jump back to v39a: “Do not resist an evil person.” Put them together and what do you have? Do not resist an evil person – if he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat also. Very straightforward.

We’ll cover the rest of the passage next time. Until then, keep looking at the passage. Check out v41 and search for why Bell’s interpretation won’t work. Also, look at v42, which Bell omitted, and determine why it was far more convenient for him to ignore it than to include it in his message.

Look at the larger context, too – the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. Does Bell’s interpretation fit? And does it match the example set for us by Jesus?

An Example of Emergent Interpretation

2011-06-02T09:53:00.001-04:00

In light of our topic last Sunday night on the Emergent view of the Bible, I thought it would be helpful to give you an example of the kinds of biblical interpretation you can find among Emergent leaders. We’ll use a message that Rob Bell preached on Matthew 5:38-41 several years ago. In this post, I’ll give Bell’s interpretation and then allow a few days for you to look at the passage yourself and try to determine where he is off. Then in subsequent posts, we’ll walk through the section verse-by-verse showing why Bell is wrong and how we can know what the correct interpretation is. This will not be a difficult exercise - the passage is so straightforward that finding the correct interpretation is as simple as just reading the verses.

Matthew 5:38-42

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Okay, here is a close paraphrase of the Bell interpretation:

To understand what Jesus is really saying here, we need to know a little about the culture of that day. The Jews in the 1st century were a downtrodden people living in an extremely violent world, oppressed by the Roman Empire. They were poor, overtaxed, and brutalized in every way.

So here comes Jesus with a message for these people – people who know that violence is wrong but who need some way to resist, reclaim their dignity, and assert their rights.

Let’s look at the first few lines: “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” What Jesus is saying is that the eye for an eye thing is out. You shouldn’t engage in violent resistance. So if someone hits you, you shouldn’t hit them back. But Jesus offers another way to resist: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Now there are some things we need to know about the culture. Back then people used their two hands for very different things. Your left hand was your bathroom hand and you didn’t use it for anything else. So if you were going to hit someone, you would use your right hand. Also, you would never use a closed fist to hit someone whom you thought was beneath you. You would slap them. It was a degrading gesture and the Jews were well accustomed to being slapped by the Romans.

So let’s think about this. If I slap someone – again, only using my right hand – and then they turn the other cheek for me to strike them again, they have put me in a very awkward position. Slapping them on the other cheek would be impossible to do. I would be forced to use a closed fist. So what has that person done? That person has said, “No. You will not treat me this way anymore. You will treat me as your equal!”

Now the people listening to this would have been thinking, “This guy is a genius! This is awesome.” Jesus had just given them a way to reclaim their dignity, to assert themselves and stand up in a non-violent way. This is Non-Violent Resistance 101.

Jesus then gives another example: “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now, back then people only wore two garments - an inner shirt and an outer coat. To sue someone for their shirt was a pretty low blow. You would be leaving them with only one garment.

Again, we need to know something about the culture at the time. Back then, to see someone naked was shameful. Remember when one of Noah’s sons saw him naked and then was cursed? Yes, it was more shameful to look at someone naked than to be naked. So, in this situation, if someone wants to take my shirt and I give them my coat also, I have just gotten naked in front of them and I have heaped shame on them. Now, they are in a position of weakness. Once again, non-violent resistance. Don’t allow someone to take the upper hand and treat you poorly – you turn the tables on them, and force them to treat you well.

Can you imagine what the people in the crowd must have been thinking? “I love this guy. This is great.”

But Jesus doesn’t stop there. He gives another example: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.” Now, back then the Roman soldiers were permitted by law to force a Jew to carry their stuff for them for up to one mile. To have someone carry something more than a mile was a violation of the law. So what Jesus is advocating is to take the soldier’s stuff and when the one mile mark comes, just keep going. Now that soldier is in violation of the law and if his superiors see this, he’ll be in all kinds of trouble. Who is in a position of power then? Yes, the person carrying the stuff has put the soldier in a position of weakness, who is forced to say, “Hey, stop, stop, please give me my stuff.” So the Jew will have asserted himself, turned the tables, reclaimed his dignity, and forced the Roman to treat him with respect.

The people hearing this would have been pumped. “This guy is a genius!”

What does this mean to us? Whenever we are in a position where we are being victimized, rather than responding with violence on the one hand, and rather than just letting them walk all over us on the other hand, we should look for a third way. Look for a way to respond that will say, “No, you will not treat me like this. You will respect me and treat me like a human being.”
_________________________

I want to assure you that I have not caricatured Bell’s message at all. This is a true synopsis of what he proposes.

I really want to challenge you to take some time and work on this. Look at the text. See if it supports this interpretation. As you do, here are some things to consider:

1. Does the plain reading of the text support this? Does Bell’s interpretation require these words to mean something other than what they say?

2. Does the immediate context support this? Look at the section before and after. What is Jesus trying to get across? I’ll point out that Bell did not include v42 in his message. Why not?

3. Does the larger context support this? If you have time, read the entire Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. See if this interpretation is consistent with the other things Jesus is saying.

4. Are Jesus’ own actions consistent with this interpretation? Is Jesus practicing what He preaches? Look especially at the Passion.

5. Does the NT as a whole support this? Can you find any clear teaching anywhere in the NT consistent with what Bell has proposed?

When is He coming?

2011-05-26T11:08:00.000-04:00

As New Testament believers, we are called to hope in God, knowing that He will surely bring about Christ’s return and the eschatological coming of His kingdom. That hope is founded on the certainty of God’s prophetic word. To the born again, struggling to endure the trials of this world, there may be no more precious comfort than that given by Christ to the disciples on His last evening with them: “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John 14:1-3).

Through every heartache and disappointment, through every loss of a loved one, through every temptation and failure, and every physical infirmity, there is in the hearts of the saved the immovable conviction that this is not all there is. There awaits us a future glory where we will spend eternity glorifying God and exalting Christ. There will be no pain, no sickness, no evil, no temptation, no night, and no sin. Only joy.

It’s understandable that people would want to know when this is going to happen. I believe that if we truly grasped the wonder of what the eschaton holds for us, we would hardly be able to contain our eagerness for it. When my children find out they have a special treat waiting for them, the line of questioning I can expect to hear repeatedly is, “When? When can we have it? When will it be here?” How much more should we anticipate eternal glory with our God?

But even though it is natural to want to know when the end is coming, God has made it clear that He isn’t telling. In Acts 1:6-7, just prior to Christ’s ascension, the disciples wanted to know, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” Think about who Jesus is talking to here – the eleven remaining disciples, men He had handpicked to follow Him and learn from Him and carry His message to the ends of the earth.

These were men with inside access. In Matthew 13, after Jesus started teaching the Jews in parables, His disciples came to Him and asked Him why. He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (v11). Jesus then gave only His disciples the interpretations of the parables. He gave them information that He did not give to others. Jesus also gave them power that He did not give to others, power to cast out demons and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1-2).

And yet, even the disciples were not told when the Kingdom would come. Jesus told them explicitly, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect,” and “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt 24:44, 25:13).

In fact, a startling statement by Jesus in Matt 24:36 indicates just how privileged this information is: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Not only are the disciples in the dark on this issue, but Jesus doesn’t even know when the end is coming!

So what should we think when someone like Harold Camping proclaims that God has shown him in the Bible the precise day and hour of Christ’s return? Simple. He is a false prophet. He is blatantly contradicting the Word of God and claiming a knowledge not even held by the disciples, nor the angels, nor Christ.

Over the last couple of weeks, media outlets have reported the certainty with which Camping’s followers believed him. They quit their jobs, quit school, and squandered their life savings. What a grim lesson in the importance of knowing the Word. People who know the Bible are not susceptible to such outrageous claims. It is a sad thing that so many have been deceived when God’s Word clearly and repeatedly declares that only the Father knows the time of the end.

Why might it be that God does not want us to know when the Son is coming? The testimony of Scripture is that He wants us to live our entire lives as if it could be any minute. The parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13) and the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) indicate that we are to live wisely, not squandering our days and gifts. If we knew when the Lord was coming, we might be tempted to live for ourselves for a time and repent at the last minute to save ourselves. The uncertainty of when He is coming produces a sense of urgency to get right with God and live for Him now.

It is right to look forward to Christ’s return. It is right to long to see Him face to face and to be free from the darkness of this world. And God has told how to spend the time He has given us until He comes. We are not to spend one second trying to figure out when the time will be – to do so is to disbelieve His word. Rather we should live faithfully everyday, seeking to further His kingdom.

2011 PBF Bible Conference

2011-05-19T10:41:00.000-04:00

Few things will shake one’s faith like a well-crafted attack on the inspiration, inerrancy, and reliability of Scripture. More than ever, atheists and skeptics are taking their opposition to Christianity directly to the Bible, proposing evidence that what has traditionally been considered the Word of God is little more than a haphazard and arbitrary collection of ancient religious writings. This strategy is a good one. As evangelical Christians, our final authority for faith and practice rests with the Bible. If the enemy can persuade us to doubt or even deny the orthodox view of Scripture, at the very least he will have opened us up to all manners of destructive error. At the very worst, he will have stolen the very foundation of our faith.

The devil is a pragmatist. Once he finds a strategy that works, he wears it out. His current onslaught against the faith is the same ploy he used so affectively against our first parents in the Garden of Eden. If you listen closely to the skeptics, you can hear the serpent’s echo in their question, “Has God actually said…?”

As we have seen in our brief look at the Emergent Church in our Sunday evening series, it isn’t only the atheists who are questioning the authority of Scripture. The enemy behind the attack is the same, although the question is modified: “Can we really know what God has said?”

If the true church is to remain strong, she must be able to defend an orthodox view of the Scriptures. Knowing what we believe is only part of a ready defense. We must also know why we believe. A firm grasp of why we hold that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and reliable is valuable for two reasons. It gives us the tools with which to counter the enemy and it strengthens our own confidence that what we have in the Bible are the very words of God, words that can be trusted, words that can be understood.

Our annual Bible conference this year will focus on this issue. How did we get the Bible? What do we mean when we say it is inerrant? How can we know that the Word is reliable? These questions will be answered in depth by our guest speaker, Dr. Robert Plummer.

Dr. Plummer is Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. His book, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, is not only an excellent resource on the discipline of interpretation, but also gives a solid understanding of how we got the Bible, why it is reliable, and what inerrancy means. It is a great resource for pastors and laypersons alike.

The Bible conference will be held at PBF on August 13-14. Please mark your calendars now and look for more details in the coming weeks.

Below is a sermon that Dr. Plummer recently delivered at SBTS. If you have the time to listen, you will be blessed.

Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon

2011-05-05T14:23:00.000-04:00

We did not have time to deal with the last few verses of Judges 12 on Sunday, so I’d like to do that here. In Judges 12:8-15, we find the last of the six “minor judges,” Ibzan, Elon, and Adbon. Like Shamgar (3:31), Tola (10:1-2), and Jair (10:3-5), not much is said about these judges, and this is most likely because their respective judgeships do not contribute much to the overall themes of the book. As we have seen, the author has been very disciplined in his choices of material, seeking above all to develop the twin themes of the apostasy of Israel and God’s determination to save His people.

In light of this, we may find it difficult to determine why these judges are included at all. As I have noted before, I believe their inclusion indicates the historicity of the events of Judges. If the book was merely a collection of fictional moral tales or tragedies, we wouldn’t expect to find these six very brief mentions of characters that add little to the overall themes. The author seems to be accounting for the tenures of all of the judges while focusing on those that are most instructive.

Regarding these last three minor judges, the text reads:

After him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel. He had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he gave in marriage outside his clan, and thirty daughters he brought in from outside for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years. Then Ibzan died and was buried at Bethlehem.

After him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel, and he judged Israel ten years. Then Elon the Zebulunite died and was buried at Aijalon in the land of Zebulun.

After him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel. He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys, and he judged Israel eight years. Then Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died and was buried at Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites.
(Jdg 12:8-15 ESV)

Beyond the usual information about where the judge was from, how long he judged, and where he was buried, the text offers that Ibzan had 30 sons and 30 daughters. As with Jair (10:1-2), such a large number of children would have required a large harem (one scholar estimates between 13 and 24 wives) as well as the resources to support such a harem.[1] The same is true of Abdon, who had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys, a sign of great opulence.

What do these details tell us? First of all, the precedent of the judge as royalty set by Gideon is still intact. The things said of these men are what we would expect to learn about ancient Near Eastern kings – many children, large harems, and great wealth. What should be noted is that at this point in Israel, God had not provided for a monarchy. And even if He had, the section of the Law governing the office of a future king forbade the gathering of many wives and much wealth (Deut 17:14-17).

Second, that Ibzan arranged for all of his children to marry outside of his clan was highly unusual. It was customary for children to marry within the extended family. That he did not do so indicates that Ibzan was mainly interested in building and securing a power base. Intermarriage in the ancient Near East was a way of creating alliances and increasing the scope of one’s political influence. This is another indication of the Canaanite influence on the Israelites.

So at the very least, these judges do not show a course correction of any kind in the morality of Israel. The self-interest that characterized the Gideon and Jephthah cycles has become the norm.

This is instructive for you and me. Set patterns of sin and idolatry in our lives do not go away on their own. Unless significant action is taken, we can expect our progression toward worldliness to continue unabated. Only a cross-centered life will experience victory over sin and progress toward Christlikeness.

[1] K. Lawson Younger, Jr. The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 277.

Understanding Hell, Part 6

2011-04-28T12:46:00.000-04:00

(To read the earlier posts in this series, click here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5)

Objection #4: “One of the New Testament words for hell is “gehenna” which refers to a site just outside of Jerusalem where children were once sacrificed to the pagan god Molech. Josiah, out of disgust for the practice, turned the site into a garbage dump. Doesn’t it make sense that when Jesus used this word he was warning people against making a waste of their lives?”

It is possible that gehenna refers to a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, which would have burned constantly to dispose of the garbage, and it is possible that it was the location of child sacrifices to Molech. (I say “possible” because there is no evidence in any primary sources that there was once a fiery dump there.[1]) But to use these referents to limit Jesus’ teaching on final judgment is to ignore all that Jesus says about gehenna. Consider a couple of references.

Matthew 18:8-9

8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell [Greek: gehenna] of fire.

It’s important to look at these two verses together because they are clearly describing the same situation. V8 warns of the penalty of being thrown into “eternal fire.” V9 warns of being thrown into the “gehenna of fire.” I won’t rehash what we have already discovered concerning the word “eternal” in the New Testament other than to remind you that it means eternal. When Jesus uses the term “gehenna” here He is referring to a place of eternal fire. (See also Mark 9:43,45,47.)

Further, Jesus contrasts entering “life” with being thrown into gehenna. Of course, this isn’t a reference to literal birth, but rather life after death, an existence that Jesus repeatedly describes as eternal (Matt 19:29, John 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40; 17:3). This is an example of Jesus describing the two possible eternal destinations, heaven and hell (see also Matt 25:46).

Matthew 10:28

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna].

Now we see that gehenna is a place where the body AND soul are destroyed. (See last week’s post on the use of “destroyed” here.) The parallel passage in Luke 12:5 is helpful: But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Interpreting Scripture with Scripture, we see that the casting of the body and soul into gehenna takes place after death. If we pile up Jesus descriptions of this place so far, we find that it is a place of post-mortem, eternal torment of both the body and soul. This does not work if Jesus intends for us to understand gehenna as the finite dump outside of Jerusalem, or even as a metaphor for annihilation.

So what are we to make of this? When Jesus used gehenna, He was using a frightening geographical reference familiar to Him and His listeners to warn about an eternal destination that people should seek to avoid at all cost.[2] In other words, it is best to take gehenna to be a reference to the place traditionally referred to as hell.

[1] Peter Head, “Duration of Divine Judgment,” in Eschatology in Bible and Theology, eds. Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliot (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 223.

[2] Robert W. Yarbrough, “Jesus on Hell” in Hell Under Fire, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 79.

Easter Video

2011-04-23T10:53:00.002-04:00

Understanding Hell, Part 5

2011-04-21T14:01:00.000-04:00

(To read the earlier posts in this series, click here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4)

Objection #3: “Because of the New Testament’s use of the term “destruction” to describe the judgment of the ungodly (Mat 7:13; Rom 9:22; 2Th 1:9; 2Pe 2:12), doesn’t it make sense to conclude that the conscious torment of hell is not eternal? How can someone who is “destroyed” continue to live consciously?”

This objection is one made by those who hold a view called annihilationism, which is the belief that those who die apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ will eventually and ultimately cease to exist. To the word “destruction,” annihilationists would add “perish” and “death,” each of which are words used to describe the final state of the unbeliever.

On the surface, this appears to be a strong objection to the idea of hell as a place of eternal, conscious suffering. However, those who raise this objection assume a definition of “destruction” that does not accord with its usage in the New Testament. That is, it is assumed that to suffer “destruction” must entail ceasing to exist. But this is not the most natural understanding of the word as defined by the major Greek lexicons. Typically, it carries the idea of ruin or loss.

Douglas Moo, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College notes that the biblical terms translated destruction usually refer to the state of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function:

“The key words for ‘destroy’ and ‘destruction’ can also refer to land that has lost its fruitfulness (Ezek 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (Matt 26:8; Mark14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37); to a coin that is useless because it is ‘lost’ (Luke 15:9); or to the entire world that ‘perishes,’ as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state.”[1]

Taking “destruction” to refer to annihilation not only forces us to assign a meaning not demanded by its usage elsewhere, but it also requires us to ignore all that we have already seen regarding the eternality of hell, and specifically those texts that refer to the eternal, conscious suffering of hell.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus describes the rich man in Hades as “being in torment,” a description born out by the rest of the parable. Truly, it is the agony of the experience that gives meaning to the story. The suffering is so intense that the rich “lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame’” (Luk 16:23-24). When the rich man learns that no relief is possible, he begs that Lazarus be sent to warn his five brothers, “lest they also come into this place of torment” (v28). The torment of hell is the point of the parable. If judgment consists of annihilation, there is no torment, and if there is no torment the parable serves as a pointless warning. Worse, the parable is deceptive.

Elsewhere, we read of other descriptions of the agony of hell. “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” Jesus warned repeatedly (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk. 13:28). James 5:1 warns the rich of the “miseries that are coming upon you.” Rev 14:11 gives this description: the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night. In other words, the torment of hell endures forever and there is no relief from it. Rev 20:9-15 describes hell as a lake of fire, the destination of all the unbelieving, where “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (v10).

Given such descriptions, it is difficult to imagine a way to justify annihilationism. The concept of hell as “destruction” is therefore best understood as utter ruin or waste.

Some might wonder why someone would argue emphatically that hell will mean eternal, conscious suffering for those who go there. I can’t answer for others, but I will tell you why I do. First of all, the Bible clearly teaches it. You and I don’t get to decide what hell is like, no matter how much of an emotional problem we have with it. God created it and He has told us what it is like. There should be no argument.

Second, the seriousness of hell demands that it be represented accurately. To soften it or make it less than what it is is to remove the urgency of the Bible’s many warnings about it. How could we possibly be regarded as loving our neighbor if we minimize the gravity of the judgment that awaits them? Which picture provides a greater incentive to repent – an eternal nap or an eternal, physical, unrelenting torment in a lake of fire? The irony is that the people who so boldly declare hell to be simply the end of one’s existence are actually aiding the forces of darkness so eager to usher them into the real hell.

The reality of hell makes me shudder for those who will go there. Our Lord spent far more time warning of the horrors of hell than of the wonders of heaven. For that reason, I also shudder for those who have gone behind Him, declaring persistently, “Don’t worry. It won’t be that bad.”

[1] Douglas J. Moo, “Paul on Hell,” in Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 105.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God"

2011-04-14T11:13:00.000-04:00

Reading through several psalms this morning, I noticed a connection between Psalm 14 and Psalm 104. Psalm 14 begins with the statement, The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” That verse always reminds me of Romans 1:18ff, which notes that God has made His existence abundantly clear through the things He has created, so that man is without an excuse for not honoring, thanking, and worshiping Him. Claiming to be wise, they become fools… (Rom 1:22).

Psalm 104 provides what could be thought of as a great exposition of how God has made Himself known in His creation. The psalmist begins by describing different parts of creation as God’s garments (vv1-2), His habitation (vv2-3), His chariot (v3), and His wings (v3).

He then describes God’s past acts in creation:

5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.

8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.

These verses speak of the permanence of God’s work as well as the meticulous detail. The mountains are where they are because He put them there. The water stays where it is because God made it so.

But beginning in v10 is an account of God’s display of His work in creation that I tend to overlook. When I think of God’s general revelation, I think of His past work in creation – the earth and everything in it exists because God spoke it into existence. But there is much more to be said. God also makes Himself known by His continued providence over and in the world He has created.

For example, vv10-11: You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills; they give drink to every beast of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

In other words, rivers flow because God makes them to do so. Likewise v13 declares that God Himself waters the mountains with rain – “the earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your work.” The chapter is full of such celebrations of God’s perpetual activity in the world. He causes the grass and plants to grow so that man can enjoy food, wine, bread, and oil (vv14-15). He waters the trees to provide a home for the birds (vv16-17). He marks the seasons with the moon and the sun (v19). He brings darkness every night (v20).

Even the animals depend upon the providence of God: “the young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God” (v21). This is true not only of the animals on the land, but also those in the sea; the very earth depends upon Him for its existence:

27 These all look to you, to give them their food in due season.

28 When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.

29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.

30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. (vv27-30).

God has born witness of Himself not only in that the world exists, but also in that He upholds its existence and function. Job 36:24-39:30 also describe God’s meticulous control over the natural order, both on the earth and in the heavens. All of the supposed “natural” phenomena in creation, from condensation and evaporation to mitosis and meiosis to gravity and electromagnetism, are expressions of God’s work in His world.

I believe that if we take the Bible seriously, we should say that what the world calls natural laws are actually the predictable and orderly ways in which God providentially upholds all things. So when the secular scientists and self-proclaimed atheists marvel at the beauty of nature and the uniformity of science, they are unwittingly celebrating God’s providence. Their efforts to suppress the truth in unrighteousness cannot squelch His testimony of Himself all around them.

Truly, the fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Understanding Hell, Part 4

2011-04-07T15:08:00.000-04:00

(Find the earlier posts in this series here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3)

Objection #2: “I agree that God is a just God. But wouldn’t it be unjust for Him to punish a finite sin for all eternity?”

This is a very common and compelling question. Some people reject the doctrine of hell because it seems unfathomable that God would torment someone in a literal, physical hell for all eternity, giving an infinite sentence for finite sins. There are others who accept the biblical teaching that hell is eternal, but just want help knowing why hell is eternal.

Most of us have no problem with the concept of retributive justice. The murderer and rapist are rightly sent to prison for decades. Many of us support the death penalty for certain crimes. We see that God has placed value upon human life and that when a person takes the life of another, his life should be taken (Gen9:6). An eye for an eye makes sense to the human mind. But how can any sin warrant an eternal hell?

I believe there are at least two good explanations. The first is that we simply do not have the capacity to rightly judge the sinfulness of sin. All of us have had others sin against us and all of us have sinned against others. In either case, our only frame of reference for understanding the offensiveness of that sin is in our capacity as fallen creatures. There is a very real sense in which it is impossible for us to really grasp the depravity of sin. That’s because we all sin all the time. We sin so easily and naturally that it seems normal, and in a way it is normal. It is normal in the sense that it flows from our nature. We are accustomed to sin.

My dad has been drinking black coffee for decades. He thinks it tastes good. This amazed me for years. I asked him if he’d always taken it black. He said yes, he didn’t want to mess with doctoring it up. I asked him if it tasted good from the very beginning. He said not at first, but he got used to it. Now it’s delicious.

A few years ago, I decided I was going to drink it black, too. That lasted about .5 seconds. It was rancid. It was difficult to imagine that my dad had no idea how bad that stuff tasted. So how is it possible that he drinks it black and doesn’t taste the bitterness? He’s been drinking it that way for decades. It’s normal to him. For those of us who don’t drink it black, he’s not a reliable gauge for the bitterness of anything.

Likewise, because of our own sinful natures and our immersion in a fallen world, none of us are reliable gauges for the objective sinfulness of sin and therefore for the reasonableness of the penalty for sin. We simply do not have the capacity to judge the sinfulness of sin the way an infinitely holy God can. Our understanding of sin is subjective; His is objective. Our sense of it is dulled. He sees it for what it really is. For that reason, His judgment is superior to ours and we should trust Him in that.

But not only is God’s judgment of the sinfulness of sin more reliable than ours, but His offense at sin is far more personal than ours. God is pure holiness, as we discussed in the opening post of this series. He is infinitely holy. Universal moral law is an expression of the character of God, so sin is not merely the transgression of an impersonal rule, but rather it is the violation of His very person. Further, any finite sin against Him is an infinitely offensive sin, not because the offender is infinite, but because the One offended is infinite – infinite in His separation from all that is sinful. And an infinite offense calls for an infinite punishment.

A second explanation for why hell is eternal is one that many of us may not have ever considered. When Adam fell, he plunged all mankind into a state of total depravity. Ephesians 2:1-3 tells us that the unsaved are dead in their trespasses and sin. By nature they follow after the world, the devil, and their own sinful flesh. Romans 8:7-8 notes the inability of the unbelieving to obey God. Romans 6:17-18 teaches that prior to salvation, man is enslaved to sin. So what does this have to do with the eternality of hell?

Well, what is the only thing that can free us from sin? What is the only thing that can enable us to obey God? The God-ordained, Christ-bought, Spirit-applied work of salvation that comes by grace through repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. Nothing else. So all those who are consigned to hell as a penalty for sin will continue to be totally depraved. Hell will not turn them into saints or give them the ability to stop sinning. They will be continuing to earn God’s wrath for all eternity. The sinful thoughts, the sinful desires, the blasphemous slander against God will not be purged from their nature by hell. If anything, it will intensify as God removes his restraining grace from them.

The eternality of hell is a terrible thought, but it makes the Savior all the more precious. By His sacrifice, we have been spared the worst fate possible. May the truth of this doctrine move us to proclaim His gospel with urgency – time is running out for those around us who have not surrendered to Him.

Understanding Hell, Part 3

2011-03-31T12:44:00.000-04:00

(If you haven’t read the first two posts in this series, you can find them here and here.)

So far we have spent a little time establishing the biblical case for a literal, physical, eternal hell. Now I’d like to briefly deal with the first of several common objections to this doctrine.

Objection #1: “The Greek word for ‘eternal’ is aionios, which can describe an ‘age’ or ‘segment of time. Isn’t it possible that when the Bible speaks of the eternal nature of hell it means that hell will last for an age, that is, not for eternity, but for a finite period of time?”

It is true that aionios can refer to a limited period of time. It can also refer to the age to come or to the world. So how do we know which sense is being used in any given instance? The context is always the determining factor. And in the case of texts dealing with the subject of hell, there are at least three reasons why it is best to take aionios as referring to a literal eternity.

First of all, the New Testament shows that eternal punishment is parallel with eternal life. In Matthew 25:46 aionios is used of both heaven and hell. There, speaking of the judgment of the nations, Jesus says, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." One of the cardinal rules of biblical interpretation is that you don’t assign different meanings to multiple uses of the same word in the same passage. So if we want to say that hell is temporary, we have to say also that eternal life is temporary. Moses Stuart, considered to be North America’s first Bible scholar, expressed it another way when he wrote, “we must either admit the endless misery of hell or give up the endless happiness of heaven” (Moses Stuart, Exegetical Essays on Several Words Relating to Future Punishment, p62).

Second, other passages point to the eternality of hell without using the word aionios. In Matthew 3:12, John the Baptist refers to the judgment as “unquenchable fire.” That is, fire that cannot be put out. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as the place “where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” See also Mark 9:43 and Luke 3:17. Sounds eternal to me. So even if it is granted that aionios can mean something less than a literal eternity, these other references still stand as indicating an eternal punishment for the wicked.

Third, there is a usage of aionios that always refers to a literal eternity. Wherever we find aionas ton aionon, which is translated “forever and ever,” we can know that a real eternity is in view. It literally means “the age of the ages,” and is used to describe the duration of God’s glory (Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; Rev 5:13, 7:12), the duration of God’s throne (Heb 1:8), the duration of God’s dominion (1 Pet 4:11, 5:11; Rev 1:6, 11:15), the duration of God’s existence (Rev 4:9, 10; 10:6; 15:7), and the duration of the saint’s reign with Christ (Rev 22:5). This usage is also found in Rev 20:10 where it describes the fate of those cast into the lake of fire: they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

So yes, aionios can mean a limited period of time, but for the reasons stated above we cannot conclude that such a meaning pertains to hell. The most natural reading of the relevant New Testament texts point to a hell that endures forever.

A Suggested Method for Tackling Sin

2011-03-28T10:51:00.000-04:00

(Here is an excerpt from yesterday's message containing a suggested method for tackling sin. Again, if any of you would like some help with your specific situation, the elders would be glad to come alongside you. For the ladies, we can set you up with a godly woman to help you.)

This is just a suggested method. This is a way, not necessarily the way, to bring the Word to bear on your sin.

If you’ve become convicted of a particular sin, that sin has most likely become a strong habit. So, following the biblical model for change (Eph 4:22-24), you have to put off the sin and put on something in its place. Kill the sinful habit and replace it with a godly one. As an example, let’s say you are being habitually impatient with your children. If you don’t have children, take note of the principles and just apply them to your situation.

The first thing to do is to determine how that sin is manifesting itself in your life. Maybe you raise your voice at them. Maybe you simmer without exploding. Maybe you say critical, hurtful things to them when they don’t do what you want. Write those things down.

Second, determine what you are thinking each time you are tempted to that sin. Sin doesn’t begin as an outward act. It starts in the mind and heart. Your thought may be, “Can’t I get some quiet around here.” It may be, “I deserve respect.” It may be, “settle down.” Write those things down.

Third, determine what you are wanting in those moments. It may be peace and quiet, when they are being loud. It may be respect, when they are disobeying. It may be a clean house, when they are messing everything up. It may be leisure and rest, when they are dragging their feet getting ready for bed. It may be punctuality when they are preventing you from leaving for church on time. Write down what it is that you are wanting.

Fourth, determine when that sin is manifesting itself. When do you find yourself getting impatient with the kids and even sinfully angry with them? You might want to keep a journal for a few days and write down the time and circumstances each time you are tempted to sin in this way. Write it all down.

Fifth, go to the Word and find out what the Bible teaches about that sin and the opposite Godly virtue. Bible Gateway is a great online resource for doing topical searches. Write that down. It will be important to commit some of these passages to memory.

Now you’ve got all that information written down. What do you do with it? The how tells us the specific actions we need to put off. If that specific action is yelling at the kids, the godly action that I can seek to put in its place is praying for the kids, and thanking the Lord for them. So when I am tempted to raise my voice, I stop and pray instead.

The thinking tells me what thoughts I need to replace. So if the thought I’m putting of is, “why can’t everyone be quiet,” I need to construct a biblical thought to replace it, like: “God is using all things, including this noise, to conform me to the image of Christ.” That new thought needs to be written down and memorized.

The wanting tells me what I’m worshiping that needs to be replaced with worship of Christ. If I want quiet so much that I will sin to get it or sin if I don’t get it, it’s an idol. I need to recognize it as such and determine that in that moment I will focus on worshiping and pleasing Christ alone. This particular part of the plan relies heavily on my having preached the gospel to myself as a habit of life.

The when tells me the specific times when I need to prepare myself for temptation, so that I can take a few minutes beforehand to go somewhere where I can be alone and go over all this information…

…the sin that I am avoiding and the godly behavior I want to exhibit in its place…the thoughts I am going to resist and the godly thoughts I will strive to think instead…the idol that will be calling my name in that moment of temptation and the excellencies of pleasing Christ that I will focus on instead. I review the relevant Scriptures that I have gathered. I pray for God’s assistance in the moment of temptation, acknowledging before God I can’t do this in my own power. Only His grace and strength will enable me to obey and I will trust in Him. And I commit to the Lord that I will strive to be faithful.

And I go through that every time I am about to go into a situation where I know temptation will be waiting for me. If those times for you are super predictable, set an alarm to remind you to do that. And one crucial part of preparation is having started my day rehearsing the gospel to myself, pondering all the glorious truths of what God has done in Christ on my behalf for His glory. Remember that looking intently at the gospel is what fuels the fire of our devotion to the Lord giving us the very desire to obey.

Again, this is just one way you can take a systematic sledgehammer to your sin. You can do some other kind of method, that’s fine. But you have to do something. Taking copious sermon notes won’t cut it. You’ve got to put it into practice where the rubber meets the road. That means actually sitting down and coming up with a plan for how to obey.

You may say, “that sure is a lot of work.” Yep. That’s why Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:5 make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue. Expend energy on this. That’s why Paul commanded Timothy in 1Tim 4:7, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness. In v10 of that chapter, he says to toil and strive. That’s why Paul writes in Philippians 2:12 to work out your own salvation as God works in you.

We do this trusting in the Lord’s strength, not our own, and focusing on the gospel, but we do have to do something. Isn’t that the spirit of James 1:19-27? Be doers of the law, not hearers who deceive themselves. Look at the perfect law of liberty and persevere. Stay there.

Understanding Hell, Part 2

2011-03-24T15:10:00.000-04:00

Last time we began our look at the doctrine of hell by studying the holiness of God. God’s holiness is the proper context for our understanding sin and judgment. Because God is infinitely holy, sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls upon those who sin against Him.

Having established last time that the wrath of God is perfectly consistent with His holy character, we will now cover the nature of God’s wrath against sinners, specifically, that it is manifested in an eternal, literal, and physical hell.

There is a category of objections to certain doctrines of the Bible that I would refer to as “but-God-wouldn’t-do-that” objections. These objections are typically raised whenever Scriptural proofs are presented showing that God would indeed do “that.” The doctrine of hell is a prime target for these objections, so let me acknowledge right away that they are out there. I will address objections in a later post, but I want to establish first what the Bible actually teaches about hell. If the Bible teaches that God does judge sinners in hell for all eternity, we must accept it.

That hell is eternal is abundantly clear in Biblical teaching. Consider Matthew 18:8-9: And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Cf. Matt 5:29-30; Mark 9:43-48)

In Matthew 25:31ff, Jesus tells of the future separation of the sheep from the goats. Of the goats, He says in v41, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

In 2 Thess 1:9, Paul writes of those “who do not know God” and “who do not obey the gospel”: They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

In Jude 5, we read, Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. Likewise, Jude mentions Sodom and Gomorrah as examples to us of those who undergo a “punishment of eternal fire” (v7). Later in v12, he describes false teachers as those “for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.”

Revelation 14:9-11 tells the fate of those who worship the beast or take his mark. V11 includes this chilling description of what they will endure: “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…” Further, Rev 20:9-15 predicts the devil, the beast, and the false prophet being thrown into the lake of fire along with Death, Hades, and all those whose names were not written in the book of life. There “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (v10).

Several of the references above also tell us that this eternal hell is a place of fire. In Matt 5:22, Jesus speaks of the sinner being liable to “the hell of fire.” In Mark 9:48, He describes hell as a place “where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” All three of the Synoptic gospels tell of hell’s “unquenchable fire” (which also testifies to the eternality of hell)(Matt 3:12; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17).

Additionally, so many references speak of hell as punishment, judgment, and torment that it is simply implausible to deny that hell is a conscious reality. If it were not a literal, conscious experience there would be no punishment. There would be no torment. And it certainly could not be said of hell, “in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk. 13:28). Yet, this is precisely how Jesus describes it, each time indicating that hell is a literal place. Heb 10:27-31 speaks of this judgment as utterly fearful. James 5:1-5 describes it as the “coming miseries.”

I’d like to point out the fact that a great many of these references are coming from the mouth of Jesus. This is ironic because so many of the “but-God-wouldn’t-do-that” objections are based on the supposedly passive character of Christ, which demonstrates that many people have as shallow an understanding of the Son as they do of the Father. Jesus taught more about hell than anyone else in the New Testament. And Rev 19:15 reveals that Jesus is the one who “will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”

If you look back at the references above, you will find that ALL of the New Testament writers testify to this picture of hell. And in spite of the unimaginable horror pictured in the Bible’s teaching on hell, over and over again the Biblical writers affirm that this punishment is just, that God’s wrath is righteous (Explicit: Acts 17:31; Rom 2:2, 5; 2 Thess 1:5-10; Rev 19:11. Assumed: Matt 5:20-30; 23:33; 24:45-25:46; Mark 9:42-48; Luke 16:19-31; Rom 1:18-3:20; Heb 10:27-31; James 4:12; 5:1-5; 2 Pet 2:4-17; Jude 6-23; Rev 20:10-15).

I mentioned on Sunday that the modern emotional problem that we have reconciling the concept of a loving God with an eternal hell is not a dilemma recognized in Scripture. Rather, a very serious problem would arise if God did not pour out His wrath on sin – God would not be just (Pro 17:15; cf Rom 3:21-26). With that in mind, consider this: is it possible that our problem with the doctrine of hell stems from our underestimation of the heinousness of sin and the holiness of God?

Next, time we’ll start to deal with the common objections.

Posted by Greg Birdwell

Understanding Hell

2011-03-17T15:24:00.001-04:00

Over about the past year, I have received numerous questions about hell, particularly from folks who want to be better prepared to share the gospel and from others seeking biblical answers to common objections to this doctrine. The traditional doctrine of hell experienced sparse opposition over the first 1800 years of the church, but in the last couple of centuries, with the rise of modernism and post-modernism, the doctrine has experienced almost constant attack. The central question posed repeatedly is this: does the Bible teach a literal, physical, eternal place of torment called “hell”? The short answer is yes, but over the next several blog posts, we will be taking a look at what the Bible has to say, as well as dealing with some of the most common objections.

It is the position of the elders of Providence Bible Fellowship that there is a literal, physical, eternal place of torment called hell, and that it is the certain destination of all those who die in their sin. All have sinned and deserve this judgment, but by God’s grace and through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, those who repent of their sin and trust in Christ alone to save them are forgiven of their sin, spared an eternity in hell, and given the gift of eternal life. We hold this position because the Bible teaches it, not because it is popular or because it is the traditional view.

The appropriate place to start with this doctrine is with the character of God. A skewed view of who God is a fertile ground for error. That is because all of theology finds its foundation in the character of God. The very word theology means “study of God.” So it should be no surprise that when we are wrong about the character of God, we end up in doctrinal error in many other areas of theology.

The doctrine of hell is no exception. This doctrine is rooted in who God is. One common way that we get into trouble with the doctrine of hell is by elevating one of God’s attributes above all the others. “God is love,” the Bible tells us (1 John 4:8, 16). Many people then infer that hell cannot be literal, physical, and eternal because “a loving God would not do that.” I’ll deal more with that objection in a later post, but what we need to understand at this point is that, yes, God is love, but He is not only love. He is also holy.

The Bible teaches that God is holy in two different senses. First, He is holy in the sense that He is unique, separate, and distinct from everything He has created (Ex 15:11; 1 Sam 2:2). This could be called the non-moral component of God’s holiness. This “otherliness” of God is related to the second sense in which He is holy: He is separated from all that is sinful. This is the moral component. One of the classic texts illuminating the holy nature of God is Isaiah 6:1-7.

1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.

2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

3 And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.

7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."

That the word “holy” is pronounced three times in v3 represents a superlative in the Hebrew language. It essentially means that God is ultimately holy. He is perfectly separated from all that is sinful. The passage clearly demonstrates God’s majesty and separation, but it goes further in that it shows the implications that God’s holiness holds for man. Notice Isaiah’s response in v5 to being confronted with the searing holiness of God. There was not only an awareness of his own sinfulness (“…I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips…”), but also a dread of judgment (“Woe is me! For I am lost…”), all because of seeing who God is (“for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”). God’s revealed holiness led to an awareness of sin and judgment. God’s holiness exposed that Isaiah was unholy.

Notice also, what v7 teaches us. Isaiah was able to be in God’s presence only because his guilt was removed and his sin was atoned for. This whole passage implies that God’s holiness is the basis for understanding sin and judgment.

Isaiah 6:1-7 shows us that God’s holiness is not just a description of who He is but also a standard for His creation. The main principle of the OT law is found in Leviticus 19:2 – “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” The same principle is found in the NT in Matthew 5:48, where Jesus said, “Be perfect, therefore, as our heavenly Father is perfect.” Peter also applied this standard to the church when he quoted Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Pet 1:15-16. The righteousness that God demands from man is based on His own character, expounded in His word.

So when we break God’s law, we are not just breaking a rule. We are offending the very character of God. We are violating His holiness. That was the reason for Isaiah’s sense of doom in the presence of this Holy God.

Because of God’s holy character, He judges men according to their deeds (Rom 2:6; 2 Tim 4:14; Heb 9:27; 1 Pet 1:17; Jude 14-15). He is a righteous judge, which means not only that He is righteous, but that it is good and right for Him to judge men accordingly (Psa 7:11; 9:7-8; 96:13; Jer 11:20; Acts 17:31; Rom 2:5; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:8; Rev 19:11).

Scripture repeatedly speaks of the wrath of God as His response to sin. As Paul begins his explication of the gospel in the book of Romans, he writes in 1:18, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...” Likewise, Jesus describes the fate of the disobedient in John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” An exhaustive list of cross-references would be too long to include here, but a few references include Num 11:33; 2Ki 22:13; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Heb 3:11, 4:3; Rev 14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1; 19:15. God’s wrath is His righteous response to the sinfulness of men.

God is holy. His holiness demands a payment for sin. This is the foundation for a right understanding of hell.

Next time we’ll begin to look at what the Bible teaches about the nature of God’s wrath. Until then, consider this: if God is not a God of wrath, why do we need a Savior?

Posted by Greg Birdwell

DeYoung's Review of "Love Wins"

2011-03-14T13:06:00.000-04:00

When I learned that Rob Bell's new book - Love Wins - would be released at the end of this month, I decided that I would set aside the time necessary to read it and write a review of it for our people. However, Kevin DeYoung today posted a review so thorough, insightful, and biblical that it would be terrible stewardship of my time to write one myself. I highly recommend it. DeYoung has done a great service to the church by dissecting this book and devoting himself to getting it done in such a timely manner.

Also, this Thursday at 2:30, Southern Seminary will be live streaming a round table discussion of the book. Participants will be Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Denny Burke, and Justin Taylor.