Christmas is about the incarnation of Jesus. From God to man. Strip away the season’s hustle and bustle, the trees, the cookies, the extra pounds, and what remains is a humble birth story and a simultaneously stunning reality — the incarnation of the eternal Son of God.
This incarnation, God himself becoming human, is a glorious fact that is too often neglected, or forgotten, amidst all the gifts, get-togethers, pageants, and presents. Therefore, we would do well to think deeply about the incarnation, especially on this day.
Here are five biblical truths of the incarnation.
1. The Incarnation Was Not the Divine Son’s Beginning
The virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem does not mark the beginning of the Son of God. Rather, it marks the eternal Son entering physically into our world and becoming one of us. John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated (ed., ruined) if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).
2. The Incarnation Shows Jesus’s Humility
Jesus is no typical king. Jesus didn’t come to be served. Instead, Jesus came to serve (Mark 10:45). His humility was on full display from the beginning to the end, from Bethlehem to Golgotha. Paul glories in the humility of Christ when he writes that, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).
3. The Incarnation Fulfills Prophecy
The incarnation wasn’t random or accidental. It was predicted in the Old Testament and in accordance with God’s eternal plan. Perhaps the clearest text predicting the Messiah would be both human and God is Isaiah 9:6: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
In this verse, Isaiah sees a son that is to be born, and yet he is no ordinary son. His extraordinary names — Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — point to his deity. And taken together — the son being born and his names — point to him being the God-man, Jesus Christ.
4. The Incarnation Is Mysterious
The Scriptures do not give us answers to all of our questions. Some things remain mysterious. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God,” Moses wrote, “but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).
Answering how it could be that one person could be both fully God and fully man is not a question that the Scriptures focus on. The early church fathers preserved this mystery at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) when they wrote that Jesus is “recognized in two natures [God and man], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”
5. The Incarnation Is Necessary for Salvation
The incarnation of Jesus does not save by itself, but it is an essential link in God’s plan of redemption. John Murray explains: “[T]he blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 14).
And the author to the Hebrews likewise writes that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).
The incarnation displays the greatness of God. Our God is the eternal God who was born in a stable, not a distant, withdrawn God; our God is a humble, giving God, not a selfish, grabbing God; our God is a purposeful, planning God, not a random, reactionary God; our God is a God who is far above us and whose ways are not our ways, not a God we can put in a box and control; and our God is a God who redeems us by his blood, not a God who leaves us in our sin. Our God is great indeed!
Written by Joseph Scheumann, December 25, 2013
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Battle Between Mainline Liberal vs Evangelical Conservative Churches
My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "do Matthew 18 to brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their beliefs, these people are not members of the “church,” as Scripture defined it. And how do I privately approach these people in the first place? In my defense, too, St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in that blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the type of the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.
Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by Master of Theological Studies-educated Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s do the unfortunate task of naming some names. On a bigger scale this time. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of the above reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).
Here are the five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.
Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement.” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.
The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “says” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” According to that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”
They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”
The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time in the argument, later on, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).
The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter n"on-believers" with the sword? Religious people.
Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?
Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in that blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the type of the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.
Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by Master of Theological Studies-educated Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s do the unfortunate task of naming some names. On a bigger scale this time. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of the above reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).
Here are the five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.
Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement.” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.
The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “says” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” According to that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”
They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”
The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time in the argument, later on, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).
The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter n"on-believers" with the sword? Religious people.
Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?
Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred Without Being Righteous?
Hopefully you read our first blog on atonement. We put forth the idea that the Classic view, by the earliest church fathers (who had more direct access to the apostles), was superior than the current “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm. Reasons were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God, and an air of cheap grace about it.
Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” I have to have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what they did to “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first blog, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.
First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of impute to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).
Let’s look at the imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that the Satisfaction theory of atonement is attaching to God. Fortunately, Scripture denies it: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:19, 20 repeats this, here:
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that separate verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:
…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…
This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this is the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is that the children hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God will have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can therefore philosophize that life isn’t fair. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.
But the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first blog. According to the Classic theory of atonement, not his guilt, but (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption of a fallen nature; his tendency to sin were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) is because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to sin before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access compared to Adam (but not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins. We choose from all that wonderful love and mercy about what to do: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel day after day? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved. That’s a far cry from the strange idea that God spread Adam’s guilt to all of us. You mean, we’ve got to pay for Adam’s sin, unless we seek deliverance for the guilt of his sin? Too bizarre.
But there are other favorite verses of the Satisfaction theorists. Such as Romans 5:12.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” We are each responsible; we can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.
While we’re on Romans 5, I’d like to cite a verse in defense of the Classic theory, Romans 5:13:
For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law
Now here’s my simple question (you debate-and logic-mongers out there should love this): If Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race, how is it that “sin is not imputed” in any case?
The Satisfaction theorists surmise that if God promised a penalty of death for Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17), and if we all die, then it’s “clear,” according to them, that since we’re sharing in this penalty of death, we must be also sharing in his guilt. But let’s use good reasoning, folks. Why do we all die? Simply because we all sin. It has nothing to do with sharing Adam’s guilt. That’s a construct not based on Scripture.
There is an evangelism problem here, too, which makes this issue important. To some unsaved people, the problem that sticks in their craw with the Satisfaction theory from all this is the tendency to conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin.” But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement, only the mortality and the tendency to sin are passed on. (And God’s wonderful plan for redemption.) We’re guilty about just our own sin. Not Adam’s. Thus, the easy tendency to blame God is dispelled. The responsibility falls back on our own shoulders, where it belongs. That is, unless we want to blame Him for our bad choices; but that’s our warped thinking—affected by too much sinning in the past.
The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Let’s put on our thinking caps: In the phrase “as in Adam all die,” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No, you might infer that wild charge against God if you’re a Satisfaction theorist. It simply says death, or mortality, is indeed passed on—as the Classic theory says: Remember, we said that we don’t want sin to be immortal.
Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement blog; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher, not God.) But in an abstract sense, it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good. Our salvation. (Blaming God for creating Satan and sin—remember, He created an angel with a choice, not Satan--is ‘way beyond the realm of our little paper.)
On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” sounds like it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; it strongly suggests that His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other blogs know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Their proof of Christ’s righteousness being transferred to the non-holy? They quote Isaiah 53:4-5, as above. Wait, that’s a bigger stretch of imagination than I’ve seen to date. Where does it say His righteousness is automatically transferred to us in Isaiah 53? Nowhere. As we said, those verses are a detail of His substitutionary death—His paying for our sin. It does NOT “naturally follow” that His righteousness transfers to us as a result.
The Satisfaction theorists then have the audacity to say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.
Over a hundred. Just like that one. Then, to beat a dead horse, google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include untruths.
To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:
But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
This seems to contradict over a hundred Old Testament verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here? It is a prayer of penitence that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When the repentant Jews petition God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? (And there are more in the New Testament, Luke 1:5-6, etc). Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” If it makes you nervous, “have I been obedient enough,” you’re on the right track to a fear of God—and a saving relationship with Him. (See a recent blog). That God could treat us righteous despite His perfection, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”
Yes, the last 26 words are tough to take, but compare that to the beautiful words about His mercy and patience. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.
Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[a] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
It hums along through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” which seemingly says works are not a part of salvation. You can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works. But I have many blogs on this, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.
Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in the “curve ball” Paul delivers in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section is an argument against the need to circumsize the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” indicated refer to Mosaic law: Jewish works like circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or salvation. It asks: So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.” So if Paul is talking all about being declared righteous without circumcision, what does it have to offer to support the Satisfaction theory of receiving Christ’s righteousness without (what we define as) “works,” or living a godly life? Nothing. Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—they became righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—getting the filth off them--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. They can “call” someone washed when they aren’t holy at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says about this leg of the Satisfaction theory, as I quoted it above (“His righteousness is set to their account” as soon as they are first saved)? There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian IS holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for heaven.
Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.
Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” I have to have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what they did to “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first blog, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.
First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of impute to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).
Let’s look at the imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that the Satisfaction theory of atonement is attaching to God. Fortunately, Scripture denies it: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:19, 20 repeats this, here:
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that separate verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:
…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…
This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this is the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is that the children hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God will have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can therefore philosophize that life isn’t fair. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.
But the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first blog. According to the Classic theory of atonement, not his guilt, but (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption of a fallen nature; his tendency to sin were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) is because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to sin before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access compared to Adam (but not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins. We choose from all that wonderful love and mercy about what to do: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel day after day? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved. That’s a far cry from the strange idea that God spread Adam’s guilt to all of us. You mean, we’ve got to pay for Adam’s sin, unless we seek deliverance for the guilt of his sin? Too bizarre.
But there are other favorite verses of the Satisfaction theorists. Such as Romans 5:12.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” We are each responsible; we can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.
While we’re on Romans 5, I’d like to cite a verse in defense of the Classic theory, Romans 5:13:
For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law
Now here’s my simple question (you debate-and logic-mongers out there should love this): If Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race, how is it that “sin is not imputed” in any case?
The Satisfaction theorists surmise that if God promised a penalty of death for Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17), and if we all die, then it’s “clear,” according to them, that since we’re sharing in this penalty of death, we must be also sharing in his guilt. But let’s use good reasoning, folks. Why do we all die? Simply because we all sin. It has nothing to do with sharing Adam’s guilt. That’s a construct not based on Scripture.
There is an evangelism problem here, too, which makes this issue important. To some unsaved people, the problem that sticks in their craw with the Satisfaction theory from all this is the tendency to conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin.” But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement, only the mortality and the tendency to sin are passed on. (And God’s wonderful plan for redemption.) We’re guilty about just our own sin. Not Adam’s. Thus, the easy tendency to blame God is dispelled. The responsibility falls back on our own shoulders, where it belongs. That is, unless we want to blame Him for our bad choices; but that’s our warped thinking—affected by too much sinning in the past.
The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Let’s put on our thinking caps: In the phrase “as in Adam all die,” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No, you might infer that wild charge against God if you’re a Satisfaction theorist. It simply says death, or mortality, is indeed passed on—as the Classic theory says: Remember, we said that we don’t want sin to be immortal.
Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement blog; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher, not God.) But in an abstract sense, it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good. Our salvation. (Blaming God for creating Satan and sin—remember, He created an angel with a choice, not Satan--is ‘way beyond the realm of our little paper.)
On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” sounds like it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; it strongly suggests that His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other blogs know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Their proof of Christ’s righteousness being transferred to the non-holy? They quote Isaiah 53:4-5, as above. Wait, that’s a bigger stretch of imagination than I’ve seen to date. Where does it say His righteousness is automatically transferred to us in Isaiah 53? Nowhere. As we said, those verses are a detail of His substitutionary death—His paying for our sin. It does NOT “naturally follow” that His righteousness transfers to us as a result.
The Satisfaction theorists then have the audacity to say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.
Over a hundred. Just like that one. Then, to beat a dead horse, google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include untruths.
To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:
But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
This seems to contradict over a hundred Old Testament verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here? It is a prayer of penitence that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When the repentant Jews petition God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? (And there are more in the New Testament, Luke 1:5-6, etc). Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” If it makes you nervous, “have I been obedient enough,” you’re on the right track to a fear of God—and a saving relationship with Him. (See a recent blog). That God could treat us righteous despite His perfection, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”
Yes, the last 26 words are tough to take, but compare that to the beautiful words about His mercy and patience. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.
Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[a] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
It hums along through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” which seemingly says works are not a part of salvation. You can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works. But I have many blogs on this, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.
Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in the “curve ball” Paul delivers in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section is an argument against the need to circumsize the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” indicated refer to Mosaic law: Jewish works like circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or salvation. It asks: So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.” So if Paul is talking all about being declared righteous without circumcision, what does it have to offer to support the Satisfaction theory of receiving Christ’s righteousness without (what we define as) “works,” or living a godly life? Nothing. Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—they became righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—getting the filth off them--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. They can “call” someone washed when they aren’t holy at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says about this leg of the Satisfaction theory, as I quoted it above (“His righteousness is set to their account” as soon as they are first saved)? There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian IS holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for heaven.
Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Persecution: Figuring Out Who are the Good Guys and Bad Guys
I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…
First, a definition: A good guy, now, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again. He is impassioned about his loyalties to Him—but, as Jesus commands, he does not hurt his enemies. Matthew 5:44:
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you
If a guy doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Let's say he was violently brutal with his enemies, in a violent period. But we don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and they were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the Lollards and John Huss (followers of Bible translator John Wyclif). The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were long before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes. The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.
On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?
But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them. (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal suppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and had revealing sentences like the following: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience—but Luther felt he had to make clear which side he was on. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.
This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent plan of action for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s terrible rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. His works carried on long afterward, and he is quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.
Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.</b>
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand—as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, came upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jews) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course—but it was not challenged by the Lutheran Reformers either. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to allow them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. Only the people who followed Christ, then, were the church. The civil court said “no” and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, Zwingli’s indecisiveness, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to read Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”
I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some strange beliefs—not taking oaths, not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they remained, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, the magistrates got their confiscated property, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their “radicalism” (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups were either drowned or tortured and burned at the stake. But even their enemies said what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine.
The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.
Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning. A cowardly act. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12. Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach things is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts:
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements--but he did get some important changes to liturgy and doctrine. Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Stay away from the bad guy label, though.
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
First, a definition: A good guy, now, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again. He is impassioned about his loyalties to Him—but, as Jesus commands, he does not hurt his enemies. Matthew 5:44:
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you
If a guy doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Let's say he was violently brutal with his enemies, in a violent period. But we don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and they were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the Lollards and John Huss (followers of Bible translator John Wyclif). The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were long before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes. The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.
On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?
But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them. (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal suppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and had revealing sentences like the following: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience—but Luther felt he had to make clear which side he was on. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.
This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent plan of action for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s terrible rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. His works carried on long afterward, and he is quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.
Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.</b>
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand—as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, came upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jews) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course—but it was not challenged by the Lutheran Reformers either. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to allow them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. Only the people who followed Christ, then, were the church. The civil court said “no” and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, Zwingli’s indecisiveness, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to read Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”
I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some strange beliefs—not taking oaths, not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they remained, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, the magistrates got their confiscated property, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their “radicalism” (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups were either drowned or tortured and burned at the stake. But even their enemies said what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine.
The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.
Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning. A cowardly act. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12. Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach things is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts:
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements--but he did get some important changes to liturgy and doctrine. Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Stay away from the bad guy label, though.
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Let Us Give Thanks
In 1863, President Lincoln set Thanksgiving as an Official Day for the Nation. This speech was written by Secretary of State William Seward:
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity… no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
But he wasn’t the first president to call for a day of thanksgiving to God. Here is George Washington’s speech in 1789:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness…for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Martin Luther King stood next to Lincoln’s Memorial in 1963 and proclaimed freedom and thanksgiving to God for the Negro in his great “I Have a Dream” speech:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation….
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2
With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!3
Of course, there are many great verses thanking God in His Word. Here are a few:
• Psalm 95:2-3
Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.
1 Corinthians 1:4-5
I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--
• Ephesians 1:15-16
For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
• 1 Timothy 4:4-5
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
• 1 Chronicles 16:34
Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
• Psalm 7:17
I will give thanks to the LORD because of his righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
• Psalm 28:7
The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.
• Psalm 100:4
Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name.
• Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
• Jeremiah 33:11
the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD, saying, "Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, for the LORD is good; his love endures forever." For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,' says the LORD.
• Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:18
give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity… no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
But he wasn’t the first president to call for a day of thanksgiving to God. Here is George Washington’s speech in 1789:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness…for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Martin Luther King stood next to Lincoln’s Memorial in 1963 and proclaimed freedom and thanksgiving to God for the Negro in his great “I Have a Dream” speech:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation….
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2
With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!3
Of course, there are many great verses thanking God in His Word. Here are a few:
• Psalm 95:2-3
Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.
1 Corinthians 1:4-5
I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--
• Ephesians 1:15-16
For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
• 1 Timothy 4:4-5
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
• 1 Chronicles 16:34
Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
• Psalm 7:17
I will give thanks to the LORD because of his righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
• Psalm 28:7
The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.
• Psalm 100:4
Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name.
• Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
• Jeremiah 33:11
the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD, saying, "Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, for the LORD is good; his love endures forever." For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,' says the LORD.
• Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:18
give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Fear of God
The fear of God is an important, yet little studied topic. Let’s start by examining Acts 2:41-47, using the New King James (NKJ):
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
In these verses, we ask, in light of the tremendous power the church had, being close to God, sharing their assets compassionately with one another, and “having favor with all the people”—were any of these wonderful things caused by their fear of God? It wouldn’t seem possible—such a negative emotion leading to a good result. Let’s explore this mystery together.
We start by defining the Greek for the word “fear:” phobos. (From which we get “phobia”). According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, phobos means (1) “dread, terror, always with this significance in the four Gospels.” Let’s keep that in mind, whenever Jesus is quoted saying “fear,” that’s the meaning. The other meaning of phobos is less intimidating: (2) “reverential fear of God as a controlling motive of the life; in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a dread of displeasing Him.” Examine your hearts: when you're thinking of sinning, do you have a real dread of displeasing Him? Is your fear of what He might do, enough to make you stop? Is the fear of God a controlling motive in your life? I suspect the only thing keeping us back from many sins is the fear of being discovered by our friends or family and losing our reputations. The serious dread of displeasing God is just not there; we just don’t think about Him.
Many sermons are expounded on God’s love, few on His hate--of sin. Many on our loving God, few on fearing Him. This paper will attempt to show how many verses there are on how fear of God is good for you. It’s a desirable attribute. Hopefully after reading it you can introspect on His holiness and get to know His “dark side” more. Like medicine, it will seem unpleasant—but it’s good for you. Let’s begin with Genesis 20:11, where Abraham sees the good side of men fearing God: They would be less likely to murder him and take his beautiful wife:
And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.
In Genesis 22, God is testing Abraham’s willingness to obey Him implicitly, regardless of how illogical His instructions seem. He is asked to sacrifice his son. Note that Abraham doesn’t delay, doesn’t ask himself: “God wants me to kill my son? The son He promised? Let me argue that, or get a second opinion.” He knew that God loves him, that following Him regardless, will all turn out well. Have we developed that trait? Note that God commends him on his fear of Him. His fear led him to obey God without question. God does respect his obedience, and no harm is done. Here is verse 12:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
In Genesis 31:42a, Jacob has a name for God: The Fear of Isaac. Nowhere does God disapprove of this name. Note how Jacob appreciates this-named God as his God, connecting it with His protection for him. Finally note how the three patriarchs of Israel, giants in the faith, are all given to fearing God:
Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you (Laban) would have sent me away empty-handed.
In Exodus 1:17, the children of Israel are slaves in Egypt. The pharaoh, fearing for their numerical advantage, has instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies as soon as they arrive out of the womb. But the midwives refuse to do it—even though disobeying pharaoh endangers their own lives—because of their fear of God (fear of His judgement for murder). Note His blessing on them because their fear of God was greater than their fear of the pharaoh.
But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive... because the midwives feared God…He provided households for them.
Maybe we’d have fewer abortions if the mothers or attending nurses had a real fear of God today. In the 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v Wade, these women did not have enough fear of God to dread His ultimate punishment for murder. How many have read Galatians 5:21, which says that (unrepentant) murderers “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and would spend an eternity in hell?
In Exodus 14:31, after God’s great plagues, after the exodus, and His killing the pursuing Egyptians, then the children of Israel finally feared God. After that they really believed Moses and God. So, a real belief in God, with obedience following, results from a fear of God.
Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt; so the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD and His servant Moses.
In Exodus 18:21, Moses is to select men as judges, an extremely important function. The first requirement for such men? You guessed it; they need to have a fear of God.
Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds…
In Exodus 20:20b, the Ten Commandments are given. The very first words that Moses says at this momentous occasion include the following:
God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”
The Ten Commandments is supposed to awaken the soul to a proper fear of God. The Commandments are His the rules--but it still takes a fear of God to obey the rules consistently. Once again, God’s Word is saying that fear of God reduces sin.
There are plenty more in the Old Testament, but to make this paper short enough to be readable, let’s skip ahead to the New Testament; what did Jesus say about fear? Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
People experience “peer pressure;” they shrink back from declaring for Christ, particularly in public spots. And so it was for the Jews, who did not want to go against the Pharisees, who could be a genuine threat to your life if you followed Jesus. But Jesus was unsympathetic for those feelings; He has a stark word (one of many—He talked a lot about hell): basically, "it’s them or me, you can't have both. Follow me, and the worst they can do is take your life. But you get an eternity in heaven. Follow them, you’ll have friends in the world, but then your worry should be about hell—which is forever."
We definitely need an injection of fear for God in this attractive world, to keep us out of hell. (Don’t forget, we said in the two definitions of “fear” that the meaning in the Gospels here is “dread, terror.” Jesus was blunt. Your terror of what God can do to you should be greater than your terror of what people can do. People can take your lives, but God can take your eternity).
You want mercy from God? We all should, because the depth and frequency of our sin means we need lots of mercy. Luke 1:50 tells us how to get mercy:
And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
Luke 5:26 gives the peoples’ reaction when they see Jesus healing: Fear. Why? Of His supernaturalism.
And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!”. Today we wold be more cynical and sophisticated about healings. Which is the better reaction? Note how their fear didn’t stop their glorifying God. Another good result from a supposedly negative emotion (The same thing happens in Luke 7:16).
In Luke 23:40-41, one criminal on a cross next to Jesus rebukes the other. The one who feared God admitted his execution was proper punishment for his deeds, something few criminals do. He also judged Jesus as innocent, something the people and the Pharisees couldn’t do. Fear of God allows you to judge people properly, and to be humble. Also, wonderfully, the one who feared God got saved. The other one was going to hell.
But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”
Now we go to the book of Acts. God’s stamp of approval was definitely on the man who was the first Gentile to receive the Gospel. Cornelius was that man. How did he get to be first in line? Because he feared God, among other positive features. A description of him is in Acts 10:2:
…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
Note that fear of God is listed ahead of his giving to the poor, and ahead of his passion for prayer. I’ve heard lots of sermons on giving and the power of prayer, but none on the power of fearing God.
Once again, for brevity, we have to skip lots of verses, and move on to the Epistles. In Romans 3, Paul is enumerating the horrible sins of those bound for hell…”Their throat is an open tomb,” etc. He describes how sin gets worse and worse. And how does he end it with, what phrase did he use as the worst, the source of all this defiant sin and rebellion? It’s in Romans 3:18 (just before the gospel is explained to save us from all that, and hell too):
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
In Romans 11:20-22, Paul is justifying why he is bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles—it was because the Jews (the natural branches of Jesus, the Vine) rejected it and got “broken off” the Vine. So God turned to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles might get haughty (“we’re smarter than the Jews”). His solution for that? They needed to fear God, or else He could cut them off too (God hates pride). Further, note that God is called “severe.” Haven’t heard any sermons on God’s “negative” qualities revealed here:
Because of unbelief they (Jews) were broken off, and you (Gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Does God sound antagonistic there? Well, deal with it; change your definition of God’s love. He is in charge of the universe, and makes the rules. We should be grateful that He reveals Himself to us so we know what to do to get on His good side, and what gets on His bad side.
In II Corinthians 7:1, Paul has the method to be holy (necessary for salvation, as my other blogs discuss): Fear God.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
In Ephesians 5:21-22, women are going to dislike me for this, but Paul has a solution for women who can’t submit to their husbands because they don’t trust him. Now I realize that there are other qualifiers for wives and husbands, but I’m reminded of our verses above, where Abraham was ready to do something illogical because he trusted God. And it worked out, because God honored his fear of Him, He made sure all was well. Women, take a hint—trusting your husband is really trusting God, because you’re obeying His commandment to submit. He will honor your trust in Him and make it all work out. The verses are broadened to include all of us acting unselfishly and trusting all the brothers and sisters. What makes us take a chance and submit to others? Fear of God, of course. I have never heard a sermon on this angle of husbands and wives. Putting these two verses together is called “context.”
…submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Once again, brevity demands a stop. I’m sure I missed some great verses. All you need to do is go to biblegate.com and “google” the word “fear.” But I think you’ve gotten the message. Fear of God is absolutely necessary to reduce sin and to be more holy, to obey God. A lot more people would be saved if they had this attribute. The only question is, how do we develop this fine characteristic? Here’s a few suggestions: (1) Read more of the Old Testament. Lots of judgment and hellfire for disobedience. Not pleasant, but you need to see how much God hated sin. Don’t fall for the argument, “God was different then.” If you believe that, you haven’t gotten the right message about Jesus, either, so that leads to suggestion (2) Read the Gospels just to study exactly what Jesus said. Do you notice how much He talked about judgment? Well, there you go. God doesn’t change, after all, between Old and New Testaments. Write down everything that suggests what it really takes to be saved (or read my blog on initial and final salvation for a quickie summary). When you’re reading, be careful to “update” Biblical words like “idols.” Maybe you think that’s just for primitive folk, wood and stone. Not for me, you say. But read a Biblical definition of idolatry, then spend some time asking yourself if you’ve been into idolatry, modern applicability. In other words, spend some time asking yourself about the sins you’ve done, and the effects on the family, placing yourself above God (that’s idolatry too). And then think about God, who loves you more than you can imagine, watching you sin. You (and everyone) could do much more with your life if you dedicate yourself 100% to Him. He would make you so happy. So why don’t you? Examine that—is it simple selfishness? Greed? Fear of being laughed at? Then imagine yourself at the judgment seat—we will all be there—when you give your reasons, your lame reasons. What are your Scriptural gifts? You don’t know? Have they been given to God? Do you know what the fruits are, a requirement for you to have them for heaven (John 15:2)? How about your time with God? A person you’re in love with, you talk to daily—how much time do you spend during the week talking with God? Maybe you conclude that you don’t really love Him? That’s not good, read I John when it separates saved vs unsaved, measured by the love you show. It’s never too late to change.
As you can see, lots of Scripture reading and introspection are needed. Please, take time for this. Most people’s mind goes ten different ways when trying to be quiet and meditate on Scripture. Or they sink into this, “I’m just a worm and can’t do anything.” (Maybe appealing for sympathy to get out of being judged always worked when you were a kid; it doesn’t work with God). Developing a fear of God would be frowned at by most ministers today, but who cares what they think? Their “moral leadership” is why we’re in a mess in the U.S. Better to read Scripture like the above to get the real truth about qualities God loves to see. Like fearing Him.
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
In these verses, we ask, in light of the tremendous power the church had, being close to God, sharing their assets compassionately with one another, and “having favor with all the people”—were any of these wonderful things caused by their fear of God? It wouldn’t seem possible—such a negative emotion leading to a good result. Let’s explore this mystery together.
We start by defining the Greek for the word “fear:” phobos. (From which we get “phobia”). According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, phobos means (1) “dread, terror, always with this significance in the four Gospels.” Let’s keep that in mind, whenever Jesus is quoted saying “fear,” that’s the meaning. The other meaning of phobos is less intimidating: (2) “reverential fear of God as a controlling motive of the life; in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a dread of displeasing Him.” Examine your hearts: when you're thinking of sinning, do you have a real dread of displeasing Him? Is your fear of what He might do, enough to make you stop? Is the fear of God a controlling motive in your life? I suspect the only thing keeping us back from many sins is the fear of being discovered by our friends or family and losing our reputations. The serious dread of displeasing God is just not there; we just don’t think about Him.
Many sermons are expounded on God’s love, few on His hate--of sin. Many on our loving God, few on fearing Him. This paper will attempt to show how many verses there are on how fear of God is good for you. It’s a desirable attribute. Hopefully after reading it you can introspect on His holiness and get to know His “dark side” more. Like medicine, it will seem unpleasant—but it’s good for you. Let’s begin with Genesis 20:11, where Abraham sees the good side of men fearing God: They would be less likely to murder him and take his beautiful wife:
And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.
In Genesis 22, God is testing Abraham’s willingness to obey Him implicitly, regardless of how illogical His instructions seem. He is asked to sacrifice his son. Note that Abraham doesn’t delay, doesn’t ask himself: “God wants me to kill my son? The son He promised? Let me argue that, or get a second opinion.” He knew that God loves him, that following Him regardless, will all turn out well. Have we developed that trait? Note that God commends him on his fear of Him. His fear led him to obey God without question. God does respect his obedience, and no harm is done. Here is verse 12:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
In Genesis 31:42a, Jacob has a name for God: The Fear of Isaac. Nowhere does God disapprove of this name. Note how Jacob appreciates this-named God as his God, connecting it with His protection for him. Finally note how the three patriarchs of Israel, giants in the faith, are all given to fearing God:
Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you (Laban) would have sent me away empty-handed.
In Exodus 1:17, the children of Israel are slaves in Egypt. The pharaoh, fearing for their numerical advantage, has instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies as soon as they arrive out of the womb. But the midwives refuse to do it—even though disobeying pharaoh endangers their own lives—because of their fear of God (fear of His judgement for murder). Note His blessing on them because their fear of God was greater than their fear of the pharaoh.
But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive... because the midwives feared God…He provided households for them.
Maybe we’d have fewer abortions if the mothers or attending nurses had a real fear of God today. In the 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v Wade, these women did not have enough fear of God to dread His ultimate punishment for murder. How many have read Galatians 5:21, which says that (unrepentant) murderers “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and would spend an eternity in hell?
In Exodus 14:31, after God’s great plagues, after the exodus, and His killing the pursuing Egyptians, then the children of Israel finally feared God. After that they really believed Moses and God. So, a real belief in God, with obedience following, results from a fear of God.
Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt; so the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD and His servant Moses.
In Exodus 18:21, Moses is to select men as judges, an extremely important function. The first requirement for such men? You guessed it; they need to have a fear of God.
Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds…
In Exodus 20:20b, the Ten Commandments are given. The very first words that Moses says at this momentous occasion include the following:
God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”
The Ten Commandments is supposed to awaken the soul to a proper fear of God. The Commandments are His the rules--but it still takes a fear of God to obey the rules consistently. Once again, God’s Word is saying that fear of God reduces sin.
There are plenty more in the Old Testament, but to make this paper short enough to be readable, let’s skip ahead to the New Testament; what did Jesus say about fear? Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
People experience “peer pressure;” they shrink back from declaring for Christ, particularly in public spots. And so it was for the Jews, who did not want to go against the Pharisees, who could be a genuine threat to your life if you followed Jesus. But Jesus was unsympathetic for those feelings; He has a stark word (one of many—He talked a lot about hell): basically, "it’s them or me, you can't have both. Follow me, and the worst they can do is take your life. But you get an eternity in heaven. Follow them, you’ll have friends in the world, but then your worry should be about hell—which is forever."
We definitely need an injection of fear for God in this attractive world, to keep us out of hell. (Don’t forget, we said in the two definitions of “fear” that the meaning in the Gospels here is “dread, terror.” Jesus was blunt. Your terror of what God can do to you should be greater than your terror of what people can do. People can take your lives, but God can take your eternity).
You want mercy from God? We all should, because the depth and frequency of our sin means we need lots of mercy. Luke 1:50 tells us how to get mercy:
And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
Luke 5:26 gives the peoples’ reaction when they see Jesus healing: Fear. Why? Of His supernaturalism.
And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!”. Today we wold be more cynical and sophisticated about healings. Which is the better reaction? Note how their fear didn’t stop their glorifying God. Another good result from a supposedly negative emotion (The same thing happens in Luke 7:16).
In Luke 23:40-41, one criminal on a cross next to Jesus rebukes the other. The one who feared God admitted his execution was proper punishment for his deeds, something few criminals do. He also judged Jesus as innocent, something the people and the Pharisees couldn’t do. Fear of God allows you to judge people properly, and to be humble. Also, wonderfully, the one who feared God got saved. The other one was going to hell.
But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”
Now we go to the book of Acts. God’s stamp of approval was definitely on the man who was the first Gentile to receive the Gospel. Cornelius was that man. How did he get to be first in line? Because he feared God, among other positive features. A description of him is in Acts 10:2:
…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
Note that fear of God is listed ahead of his giving to the poor, and ahead of his passion for prayer. I’ve heard lots of sermons on giving and the power of prayer, but none on the power of fearing God.
Once again, for brevity, we have to skip lots of verses, and move on to the Epistles. In Romans 3, Paul is enumerating the horrible sins of those bound for hell…”Their throat is an open tomb,” etc. He describes how sin gets worse and worse. And how does he end it with, what phrase did he use as the worst, the source of all this defiant sin and rebellion? It’s in Romans 3:18 (just before the gospel is explained to save us from all that, and hell too):
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
In Romans 11:20-22, Paul is justifying why he is bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles—it was because the Jews (the natural branches of Jesus, the Vine) rejected it and got “broken off” the Vine. So God turned to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles might get haughty (“we’re smarter than the Jews”). His solution for that? They needed to fear God, or else He could cut them off too (God hates pride). Further, note that God is called “severe.” Haven’t heard any sermons on God’s “negative” qualities revealed here:
Because of unbelief they (Jews) were broken off, and you (Gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Does God sound antagonistic there? Well, deal with it; change your definition of God’s love. He is in charge of the universe, and makes the rules. We should be grateful that He reveals Himself to us so we know what to do to get on His good side, and what gets on His bad side.
In II Corinthians 7:1, Paul has the method to be holy (necessary for salvation, as my other blogs discuss): Fear God.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
In Ephesians 5:21-22, women are going to dislike me for this, but Paul has a solution for women who can’t submit to their husbands because they don’t trust him. Now I realize that there are other qualifiers for wives and husbands, but I’m reminded of our verses above, where Abraham was ready to do something illogical because he trusted God. And it worked out, because God honored his fear of Him, He made sure all was well. Women, take a hint—trusting your husband is really trusting God, because you’re obeying His commandment to submit. He will honor your trust in Him and make it all work out. The verses are broadened to include all of us acting unselfishly and trusting all the brothers and sisters. What makes us take a chance and submit to others? Fear of God, of course. I have never heard a sermon on this angle of husbands and wives. Putting these two verses together is called “context.”
…submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Once again, brevity demands a stop. I’m sure I missed some great verses. All you need to do is go to biblegate.com and “google” the word “fear.” But I think you’ve gotten the message. Fear of God is absolutely necessary to reduce sin and to be more holy, to obey God. A lot more people would be saved if they had this attribute. The only question is, how do we develop this fine characteristic? Here’s a few suggestions: (1) Read more of the Old Testament. Lots of judgment and hellfire for disobedience. Not pleasant, but you need to see how much God hated sin. Don’t fall for the argument, “God was different then.” If you believe that, you haven’t gotten the right message about Jesus, either, so that leads to suggestion (2) Read the Gospels just to study exactly what Jesus said. Do you notice how much He talked about judgment? Well, there you go. God doesn’t change, after all, between Old and New Testaments. Write down everything that suggests what it really takes to be saved (or read my blog on initial and final salvation for a quickie summary). When you’re reading, be careful to “update” Biblical words like “idols.” Maybe you think that’s just for primitive folk, wood and stone. Not for me, you say. But read a Biblical definition of idolatry, then spend some time asking yourself if you’ve been into idolatry, modern applicability. In other words, spend some time asking yourself about the sins you’ve done, and the effects on the family, placing yourself above God (that’s idolatry too). And then think about God, who loves you more than you can imagine, watching you sin. You (and everyone) could do much more with your life if you dedicate yourself 100% to Him. He would make you so happy. So why don’t you? Examine that—is it simple selfishness? Greed? Fear of being laughed at? Then imagine yourself at the judgment seat—we will all be there—when you give your reasons, your lame reasons. What are your Scriptural gifts? You don’t know? Have they been given to God? Do you know what the fruits are, a requirement for you to have them for heaven (John 15:2)? How about your time with God? A person you’re in love with, you talk to daily—how much time do you spend during the week talking with God? Maybe you conclude that you don’t really love Him? That’s not good, read I John when it separates saved vs unsaved, measured by the love you show. It’s never too late to change.
As you can see, lots of Scripture reading and introspection are needed. Please, take time for this. Most people’s mind goes ten different ways when trying to be quiet and meditate on Scripture. Or they sink into this, “I’m just a worm and can’t do anything.” (Maybe appealing for sympathy to get out of being judged always worked when you were a kid; it doesn’t work with God). Developing a fear of God would be frowned at by most ministers today, but who cares what they think? Their “moral leadership” is why we’re in a mess in the U.S. Better to read Scripture like the above to get the real truth about qualities God loves to see. Like fearing Him.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Some clarity on the Emerging Church
I’ve been reading an excellent book by Thomas Horn (Blood on the Altar: The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian). It led me to an interview between two giants in the faith. The interviewer is Phil Johnson (Retired U.C.-Berkley law professor, father of the “intelligent design movement,” thus an evangelist to scientists). The interviewee is none other than John MacArthur (Author of 150 books, pastor, radio preacher, president of Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles). They’re both in their 70's now. But their hands are on the pulse of the church—and they’re very, very concerned about the church’s faithfulness to Scripture. I thought I would raise their latest problem area and highlight part of their interview here.
One of the biggest threats to God's church is a church movement called the “Emerging Church.” So let’s start by defining it--from Wikipedia: they are post-Protestant, post-evangelical, post-liberal, post-conservative, and post-charismatic. Further, the movement hates preaching, is big instead on “conversation” with people. This is to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. VERY important note: There is no central doctrine. What those involved do mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the institutional church--and they support the deconstruction of modern Christian worship. They believe, instead, that there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity. They say they are creating a “safe” environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected by modern conservative evangelism. They believe that non-critical interfaith dialogue is preferred over dogmatically-driven evangelism. The movement “went public” in November 2004, where they were spotlighted in an article in Christianity Today. But they’ve been around since at least 1996. (I'm not saying Christianity Today likes their stance).
The second way to get to know the Emerging Church is by a few relevant quotes from their founding father, Brian McLaren. In an interview, he had this to confess when he "mistakenly" spoke of God in the male gender: “This is as good a place as any to apologize for my use of masculine pronouns for God…I avoid (their) use because they can give the false impression…that the Christian God is a male deity.” On the subject of the atonement, Jesus’ sacrifice for us, he calls it a “violent view.” It presents God as the “greatest existential threat to humanity.” On the return of Christ, a reader from Sweden asked: “If Jesus isn’t coming back…what about judgment or the resurrection?” His answer was psychobabble, but you can tell he's giving it a thumbs-down: “Jesus does say ‘I will come again.’…but I think it’s a mistake to assume that when he says those things, he means what we mean…with all our dispensationalist, premillennialist…or whatever categories. The hyperbolic imagery of the New Testament, moon turning to blood..etc. is political language, signaling the fall of powerful political luminaries. Also…Jesus didn’t come just to evacuate us from earth to a future heaven but to show us how to live and make this world more and more beautiful by following Jesus’ example which would eventually lead to God’s “kingdom come on earth”
Another leader, Rob Bell, also attacks fundamental doctrine: he doesn’t believe Scripture was inerrant when he mentions his greatest discovery—“the Bible as a human product.” He also denied the reality of hell and promoted universalism instead (its definition: yay, everyone gets saved!) in his book Love Wins.**(see note below). In summarizing the movement’s view, he says “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion…” Mr. McLaren agrees; he believes in inclusivism—that other religions lead to salvation. For instance, he does not think we should convert Buddhists to Christianity; we should make “Buddhists followers of Jesus.” (Buddhism is usually atheistic, so a “Buddhist Christian” is an oxymoron. Acts 4:12 doesn’t apply any more, I guess.)
Now that we’ve read a bit of this strange group, let’s let John MacArthur tell what he thinks. He’s smarter than me anyway.
He first distinguishes the movement from Modernism—a product of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance—they made human reason the king. He says “out of that came the worship of the human mind, and (in effect,they were saying), the mind trumps God.” The Emerging Church, on the other hand, is post-modernism…
“another bad philosophy. In both cases, they assault the Scripture. (This movement) is a denial of the clarity of Scripture....we can’t really know what the Bible says. Whether it’s about sin or virtue...they don’t like rules, so their ‘out’ is…(they say) “Well, it (Scripture) is not clear.” This is just another way to set the Bible aside.”
Scripture claims to be clear, however, and God holds us responsible: ”A wayfaring man though he be a fool need not err.” (Isaiah 35:8). And Dr. MacArthur also charges their leaders that “the reason they deny it (clarity) (is because) men loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19). The light is there, they hate the light, they run from the light. The issue is not that Scripture is not clear, it is crystal clear.” Dr. MacArthur wouldn’t charge them with running from the light unless he believes they’re heretical—which he says later on in the interview.
I would like to take the topic of homosexuality to get a thorough example of their approach. I’m sure you know (unless your head is in the sand) that the homosexual agenda is that we should all tolerate, all agree, with them, not finding anything morally wrong. Scripture, however, won’t let us do that. It’s condemned in Leviticus 18:22:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Revelation 21:8 includes it under “sexually immoral,” which is defined as sex outside of marriage. It says,
But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
As Romans 1 points out, it is among the worst deviations that men come down to, after God “gave them up” in their insistence to defy Him.
Scripture is “crystal clear” on this subject, is it not? Not according to Emerging Church leader Mr. MacLaren: “Many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence…that alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think…the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex.” The phrase that sticks in my craw--"no position has yet won our confidence." Our judgment trumps God.
But Dr. MacArthur insists that the truth is clear; it’s bad for the practicing homosexual, but it’s still the truth. He says, “the truth is what I will defend. It’s not personal. I’m not mad at people. I’m not trying to protect my own little space. That doesn’t make me popular in all circles, it creates just the opposite.” He maintains that it’s impossible for Christians to agree with the latest world's view: “there is no possible accommodation …Christianity would have to be reinvented to accommodate itself to any pattern of (worldly) culture thinking.” (That reminds me of a quote from our Lord in Matthew 10:34):
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
But Brian McLaren, a founding father of the Emerging movement doesn’t believe MacArthur has good motives. He was asked again where he stands on the homosexuality issue in Leadership Journal in January 2006 (Leadership Journal is also produced by Christianity Today). His answer was anything but crystal, since he switched the subject to attacking motives of the questioners instead. He first accuses conservative Christians of, quote, “wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call “radio-orthodoxy,”(a slam on radio preacher MacArthur), i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters.” After spreading this bit of slander, he says “I hesitate in answering the homosexual question…there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest…we must understand the question beneath the question…we want to be sure our answers are appropriate to the need of the moment…We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated…by political parties…whatever we say gets sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric.” Slam-bang, "I know what you guys' motives are, and I condemn them." (If their motives are to defend Scripture, that's dismissed, I guess). He's unconvinced that God has enough love in Scripture to be appropriate "for the moment." (There is a warning to Christians here, too: Pay less attention to depending on political parties to maintain Christianity. He has a paranoia about that, some of it justified).
Really, a big question he touched on is, how do you evangelize the homosexual? They hate the church, feeling condemned if they just enter a conservative one. So they never attend. They avoid us; if we approach them, they may push us away. So we do not know them. The Emerging Church has decided to, as Dr. MacArthur says, capture these ignored people by “sanctifying the culture. But the Bible doesn’t adapt to culture. It confronts culture. The Emerging Church not only is unwilling to believe the clear statement of Scripture, but it wants to let the culture define what Christianity should be…whatever the current sin that needs to be tolerated in the culture is, they’ll buy into.”
He then talks again about big movements in history. He summarizes Pre-modernism: “there is truth and it comes from God, it has a supernatural source…men believed in God or the gods.” Modernism (which I’m figuring covers 1750-2000), he says, summarizes as: “there is truth and we can find it by human reason…not revelation from God, not the Bible, but human reason.” But that wasn’t a good idea: “the world gets worse than it has ever been…the totalitarian world…fascism, Nazism, Communism, and the massacre of millions and millions of people in the name of human reason.” (The Lutherans didn’t have any trouble grabbing a gun to obey Hitler). Getting up-to-date, he says: “Now the idea of post-modernism says, “We give up. There may be truth, but we can’t know it. It may be from God, but we can’t know…so we embrace mystery…you have your truth, I have my truth…truth is whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be, it’s intuitive, it’s experiential..but it’s not universal and it’s not knowable, universally knowable.” Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, responds, “That’s why these days the highest values, the sole-remaining virtues, are things like tolerance, ambiguity, mystery..” (To me, this “mystery kick” opens the door to searching in the occult; people still want answers to life's issues.) Dr. MacArthur says, “Oh, Brian McLaren says ambiguity is really a good thing (Mr. McLaren has been quoted as saying, ”Certainty is overrated”)...it gives people a license to invent their own religion, really…no one is permitted to challenge it…it is wonderful if you want to sin without any guilt. And I think that’s at the bottom of this…they hate the light because their deeds are evil.”
He also charges, “It’s not a theology; (they say they) don’t teach…the word “sermon” scares them… we want to have a conversation, (they say). But the only part of the conversation they don’t like is when you say, ”That’s wrong. That’s sinful.” So their conversation...never has an objective…that’s another way to negate the Word of God. You can deny that it’s from God. But don’t tell me God has spoken but He mumbled. The worst thing we could do would be to soften the edges of what really is clear in Scripture.” (They claim) “the Bible is irrelevant, you can’t stand up for an hour and exposit the Word of God, you’ve got to tell them stories… To quote one of their leaders, “The bible (small “b” is their idea) is no longer a principal source of morality as a rulebook. The meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments —even assuming the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone…” A bit of sarcasm on the Ten Commandments there. These guys should work for the government. By the way, some of the most revealing McLaren quotes are on this website: http://carm.org/brian-mclaren-quotes-ignorance-bliss-theology.
Dr. MacArthur feels that (they should say) “since we don’t know what it means, why would we teach? Nobody has a right to impose on anybody else their ideas.” They take a sort of reverse humility in confessing their ignorance. To turn truth on its head, they believe that if someone claims to know what Scripture means, they have committing an act of pride. “It is an attack on the clarity of Scripture and they elevate themselves as if this is some noble reality…which they call humility…(it’s) a celebration of ignorance.”
They also have this feature: “They’re really, really aggressive at tearing down the church, tearing down historic theology...that have been a part of the church’s life for centuries…that’s the lowest level of assault there is. Anybody can shred and destroy without having to build something back in its place…(they) just shred what people believe and walk away, leaving chaos everywhere…the egotism of it is pretty frightening. And the church is filled with people who have no foundation.”
A few words of warning to those looking for a church home: "I don’t think a person should go to a church that isn’t answerable to a doctrinal statement…(if you do), you need to get out of there because you’re at the whim of a guy who can invent anything he wants any time. This entrepreneurial approach to the church is a very serious breach…" (There) “may be Christians who are seduced by this; in their ignorance they are the children tossed to and fro, carried about by every blowing wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14). Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, says: “And every man does what’s right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6). Dr. MacArthur maintains that young people from a denominational church that often lacks life and fails to exposit Scripture, these are the likely victims of this movement: “I don’t think it’s nearly as appealing to the non-churched people as to the marginally churched young people…they are reacting to the superficiality and…the legalism of (their church).”
Dr. MacArthur speaks again to the clarity of Scripture. (Jesus) “says things to them in His day like this, ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what Scripture says?’ He didn’t say to them, “Oh, look, I know why you’re having a tough time with Me, because the Old Testament is so hard to understand.” Then he brings up the example of the Gentiles, who were totally ignorant of the Old Testament…”Paul (assumes they are smart as he) builds these massive cases of understanding the Christian gospel based on the sacrificial system from the Old Testament…to come along and say that the Bible is not clear is then to accuse God, and (accusing) the Scripture itself of claiming something for itself that it can’t deliver. (Charging God like that is) pretty serious.”
**Note: Rob Bell was removed as senior pastor of his Mars Hill church in Michigan two years ago. Their current senior pastor says the church lost 1000 members through his philosophy revealed in the book Love Wins. Mark Driscoll was removed from a separate Mars Hill pastorate in October 2014. The reason given was that "he was running an intimidating and hostile workplace." It was also revealed that church money was used to pump up his book sales so he could make the NY Times Bestseller List.
The Mars Hill Corporation is dissolving; they still have money left over that was supposed to go to Ethiopia and India to help the poor that was never sent. But there are still many, many churches that still run on these philosophies.
Acknowledgement: Thomas Horn, Blood on the Altar
Christianity Today
One of the biggest threats to God's church is a church movement called the “Emerging Church.” So let’s start by defining it--from Wikipedia: they are post-Protestant, post-evangelical, post-liberal, post-conservative, and post-charismatic. Further, the movement hates preaching, is big instead on “conversation” with people. This is to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. VERY important note: There is no central doctrine. What those involved do mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the institutional church--and they support the deconstruction of modern Christian worship. They believe, instead, that there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity. They say they are creating a “safe” environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected by modern conservative evangelism. They believe that non-critical interfaith dialogue is preferred over dogmatically-driven evangelism. The movement “went public” in November 2004, where they were spotlighted in an article in Christianity Today. But they’ve been around since at least 1996. (I'm not saying Christianity Today likes their stance).
The second way to get to know the Emerging Church is by a few relevant quotes from their founding father, Brian McLaren. In an interview, he had this to confess when he "mistakenly" spoke of God in the male gender: “This is as good a place as any to apologize for my use of masculine pronouns for God…I avoid (their) use because they can give the false impression…that the Christian God is a male deity.” On the subject of the atonement, Jesus’ sacrifice for us, he calls it a “violent view.” It presents God as the “greatest existential threat to humanity.” On the return of Christ, a reader from Sweden asked: “If Jesus isn’t coming back…what about judgment or the resurrection?” His answer was psychobabble, but you can tell he's giving it a thumbs-down: “Jesus does say ‘I will come again.’…but I think it’s a mistake to assume that when he says those things, he means what we mean…with all our dispensationalist, premillennialist…or whatever categories. The hyperbolic imagery of the New Testament, moon turning to blood..etc. is political language, signaling the fall of powerful political luminaries. Also…Jesus didn’t come just to evacuate us from earth to a future heaven but to show us how to live and make this world more and more beautiful by following Jesus’ example which would eventually lead to God’s “kingdom come on earth”
Another leader, Rob Bell, also attacks fundamental doctrine: he doesn’t believe Scripture was inerrant when he mentions his greatest discovery—“the Bible as a human product.” He also denied the reality of hell and promoted universalism instead (its definition: yay, everyone gets saved!) in his book Love Wins.**(see note below). In summarizing the movement’s view, he says “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion…” Mr. McLaren agrees; he believes in inclusivism—that other religions lead to salvation. For instance, he does not think we should convert Buddhists to Christianity; we should make “Buddhists followers of Jesus.” (Buddhism is usually atheistic, so a “Buddhist Christian” is an oxymoron. Acts 4:12 doesn’t apply any more, I guess.)
Now that we’ve read a bit of this strange group, let’s let John MacArthur tell what he thinks. He’s smarter than me anyway.
He first distinguishes the movement from Modernism—a product of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance—they made human reason the king. He says “out of that came the worship of the human mind, and (in effect,they were saying), the mind trumps God.” The Emerging Church, on the other hand, is post-modernism…
“another bad philosophy. In both cases, they assault the Scripture. (This movement) is a denial of the clarity of Scripture....we can’t really know what the Bible says. Whether it’s about sin or virtue...they don’t like rules, so their ‘out’ is…(they say) “Well, it (Scripture) is not clear.” This is just another way to set the Bible aside.”
Scripture claims to be clear, however, and God holds us responsible: ”A wayfaring man though he be a fool need not err.” (Isaiah 35:8). And Dr. MacArthur also charges their leaders that “the reason they deny it (clarity) (is because) men loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19). The light is there, they hate the light, they run from the light. The issue is not that Scripture is not clear, it is crystal clear.” Dr. MacArthur wouldn’t charge them with running from the light unless he believes they’re heretical—which he says later on in the interview.
I would like to take the topic of homosexuality to get a thorough example of their approach. I’m sure you know (unless your head is in the sand) that the homosexual agenda is that we should all tolerate, all agree, with them, not finding anything morally wrong. Scripture, however, won’t let us do that. It’s condemned in Leviticus 18:22:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Revelation 21:8 includes it under “sexually immoral,” which is defined as sex outside of marriage. It says,
But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
As Romans 1 points out, it is among the worst deviations that men come down to, after God “gave them up” in their insistence to defy Him.
Scripture is “crystal clear” on this subject, is it not? Not according to Emerging Church leader Mr. MacLaren: “Many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence…that alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think…the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex.” The phrase that sticks in my craw--"no position has yet won our confidence." Our judgment trumps God.
But Dr. MacArthur insists that the truth is clear; it’s bad for the practicing homosexual, but it’s still the truth. He says, “the truth is what I will defend. It’s not personal. I’m not mad at people. I’m not trying to protect my own little space. That doesn’t make me popular in all circles, it creates just the opposite.” He maintains that it’s impossible for Christians to agree with the latest world's view: “there is no possible accommodation …Christianity would have to be reinvented to accommodate itself to any pattern of (worldly) culture thinking.” (That reminds me of a quote from our Lord in Matthew 10:34):
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
But Brian McLaren, a founding father of the Emerging movement doesn’t believe MacArthur has good motives. He was asked again where he stands on the homosexuality issue in Leadership Journal in January 2006 (Leadership Journal is also produced by Christianity Today). His answer was anything but crystal, since he switched the subject to attacking motives of the questioners instead. He first accuses conservative Christians of, quote, “wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call “radio-orthodoxy,”(a slam on radio preacher MacArthur), i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters.” After spreading this bit of slander, he says “I hesitate in answering the homosexual question…there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest…we must understand the question beneath the question…we want to be sure our answers are appropriate to the need of the moment…We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated…by political parties…whatever we say gets sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric.” Slam-bang, "I know what you guys' motives are, and I condemn them." (If their motives are to defend Scripture, that's dismissed, I guess). He's unconvinced that God has enough love in Scripture to be appropriate "for the moment." (There is a warning to Christians here, too: Pay less attention to depending on political parties to maintain Christianity. He has a paranoia about that, some of it justified).
Really, a big question he touched on is, how do you evangelize the homosexual? They hate the church, feeling condemned if they just enter a conservative one. So they never attend. They avoid us; if we approach them, they may push us away. So we do not know them. The Emerging Church has decided to, as Dr. MacArthur says, capture these ignored people by “sanctifying the culture. But the Bible doesn’t adapt to culture. It confronts culture. The Emerging Church not only is unwilling to believe the clear statement of Scripture, but it wants to let the culture define what Christianity should be…whatever the current sin that needs to be tolerated in the culture is, they’ll buy into.”
He then talks again about big movements in history. He summarizes Pre-modernism: “there is truth and it comes from God, it has a supernatural source…men believed in God or the gods.” Modernism (which I’m figuring covers 1750-2000), he says, summarizes as: “there is truth and we can find it by human reason…not revelation from God, not the Bible, but human reason.” But that wasn’t a good idea: “the world gets worse than it has ever been…the totalitarian world…fascism, Nazism, Communism, and the massacre of millions and millions of people in the name of human reason.” (The Lutherans didn’t have any trouble grabbing a gun to obey Hitler). Getting up-to-date, he says: “Now the idea of post-modernism says, “We give up. There may be truth, but we can’t know it. It may be from God, but we can’t know…so we embrace mystery…you have your truth, I have my truth…truth is whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be, it’s intuitive, it’s experiential..but it’s not universal and it’s not knowable, universally knowable.” Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, responds, “That’s why these days the highest values, the sole-remaining virtues, are things like tolerance, ambiguity, mystery..” (To me, this “mystery kick” opens the door to searching in the occult; people still want answers to life's issues.) Dr. MacArthur says, “Oh, Brian McLaren says ambiguity is really a good thing (Mr. McLaren has been quoted as saying, ”Certainty is overrated”)...it gives people a license to invent their own religion, really…no one is permitted to challenge it…it is wonderful if you want to sin without any guilt. And I think that’s at the bottom of this…they hate the light because their deeds are evil.”
He also charges, “It’s not a theology; (they say they) don’t teach…the word “sermon” scares them… we want to have a conversation, (they say). But the only part of the conversation they don’t like is when you say, ”That’s wrong. That’s sinful.” So their conversation...never has an objective…that’s another way to negate the Word of God. You can deny that it’s from God. But don’t tell me God has spoken but He mumbled. The worst thing we could do would be to soften the edges of what really is clear in Scripture.” (They claim) “the Bible is irrelevant, you can’t stand up for an hour and exposit the Word of God, you’ve got to tell them stories… To quote one of their leaders, “The bible (small “b” is their idea) is no longer a principal source of morality as a rulebook. The meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments —even assuming the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone…” A bit of sarcasm on the Ten Commandments there. These guys should work for the government. By the way, some of the most revealing McLaren quotes are on this website: http://carm.org/brian-mclaren-quotes-ignorance-bliss-theology.
Dr. MacArthur feels that (they should say) “since we don’t know what it means, why would we teach? Nobody has a right to impose on anybody else their ideas.” They take a sort of reverse humility in confessing their ignorance. To turn truth on its head, they believe that if someone claims to know what Scripture means, they have committing an act of pride. “It is an attack on the clarity of Scripture and they elevate themselves as if this is some noble reality…which they call humility…(it’s) a celebration of ignorance.”
They also have this feature: “They’re really, really aggressive at tearing down the church, tearing down historic theology...that have been a part of the church’s life for centuries…that’s the lowest level of assault there is. Anybody can shred and destroy without having to build something back in its place…(they) just shred what people believe and walk away, leaving chaos everywhere…the egotism of it is pretty frightening. And the church is filled with people who have no foundation.”
A few words of warning to those looking for a church home: "I don’t think a person should go to a church that isn’t answerable to a doctrinal statement…(if you do), you need to get out of there because you’re at the whim of a guy who can invent anything he wants any time. This entrepreneurial approach to the church is a very serious breach…" (There) “may be Christians who are seduced by this; in their ignorance they are the children tossed to and fro, carried about by every blowing wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14). Mr. Johnson, the interviewer, says: “And every man does what’s right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6). Dr. MacArthur maintains that young people from a denominational church that often lacks life and fails to exposit Scripture, these are the likely victims of this movement: “I don’t think it’s nearly as appealing to the non-churched people as to the marginally churched young people…they are reacting to the superficiality and…the legalism of (their church).”
Dr. MacArthur speaks again to the clarity of Scripture. (Jesus) “says things to them in His day like this, ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what Scripture says?’ He didn’t say to them, “Oh, look, I know why you’re having a tough time with Me, because the Old Testament is so hard to understand.” Then he brings up the example of the Gentiles, who were totally ignorant of the Old Testament…”Paul (assumes they are smart as he) builds these massive cases of understanding the Christian gospel based on the sacrificial system from the Old Testament…to come along and say that the Bible is not clear is then to accuse God, and (accusing) the Scripture itself of claiming something for itself that it can’t deliver. (Charging God like that is) pretty serious.”
**Note: Rob Bell was removed as senior pastor of his Mars Hill church in Michigan two years ago. Their current senior pastor says the church lost 1000 members through his philosophy revealed in the book Love Wins. Mark Driscoll was removed from a separate Mars Hill pastorate in October 2014. The reason given was that "he was running an intimidating and hostile workplace." It was also revealed that church money was used to pump up his book sales so he could make the NY Times Bestseller List.
The Mars Hill Corporation is dissolving; they still have money left over that was supposed to go to Ethiopia and India to help the poor that was never sent. But there are still many, many churches that still run on these philosophies.
Acknowledgement: Thomas Horn, Blood on the Altar
Christianity Today
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Two Atonement Theories
A word of prelude: This paper is designed for the average reader, not for seminarians. Atonement is an important subject—for everybody. There are some important controversies on that subject that everyone needs to hear. It affects our view of God, among other things.
So let’s start with a definition: Atonement is defined by Unger’s Bible Dictionary as “the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins.”
Nothing could be more important, right? Now, I’m not here to challenge the definition—the problem is in the details. First, a word of background assumption: If there are two different theories on the same subject, I believe the correct one would more likely be the one that was believed by the earliest church fathers (we’re talking about the disciples of the apostles, and the next generation to, say, 250 AD—all before the church got corrupted by marriage to the State). That is based on two things: (1) Their literature is breathtaking in its knowledge of the context of Scripture; and they developed an ability to effectively back doctrinal theories with Scripture; and (2) If they had doctrinal questions, there was a disciple of Paul or Peter nearby (or only a generation or two removed) who could talk on the subject ad infinitum.
Well, there are indeed two different theories on Atonement. The theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (called the “Classic” theory) lasted from the church’s beginning under apostolic leadership for 1000 years, but it was overtaken by the “Satisfaction” theory of Anselm, a Roman Catholic church philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury around 1080. His theory was accepted by Catholics, and later, believe it or not, by the Reformers. Thus, most “main line” denominations believe this way as well. (Proofs of that; (1) and (3) are quotes from usually reliable Wikipedia: (1) Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred. (2) From the Baptist Confession of Faith: The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God. (3) The satisfaction view of the atonement is a theory in Christian theology about the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Western Christianity, specifically in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles).
So what are my problems with Anselm's theory, the one that is now acceptable by most—how could I challenge something that has been around almost a thousand years (1080-today)? Well, let’s start with a question: Which theory has been blessed by the Holy Spirit? The one that started in the Holy-Spirit-moved church, its beginning (see Acts 2), the Classic theory, right? Or should I follow the Anselm theory, the one that wasn’t considered for the first 1000 years of church history, never thought up by its brilliant theologians during that time; the one that didn’t bring the church out of the dark ages—in fact, church corruption was especially rampant for 500 more years after it came out? Gee, when I state it that way, the answer should be apparent.
So let’s take a closer look at Anselm’s “Satisfaction” theory. Firstly, what about his insistence that sin is “a debt to divine justice that must be paid,” that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He is saying that a sin against a sovereign—such as what God is—is too great to be forgiven, because it insults His majesty. So, says the theory, God could not forgive it. But is this based on Medieval chivalry, or Scripture? I suggest Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and you had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run your land effectively. This theory poses that God is a God of justice, not mercy.
The theory further says that God loved us enough to allow His Son to suffer and die on the Cross. His suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—they “appeased” His need for justice. Jesus’ death on the Cross was substitutionary. By Jesus enduring God’s wrath and paying for our sin, He took our place—our ransom has been paid to the Father, so we are now accepted by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since His wrath as payment for our sin was poured out upon His Son instead of us.
Now, for comparison: Here is the “classic” theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (from 50 AD to 250 they developed this; their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). They said that our sin put us in rebellion to God and under the control of Satan. Satan demanded a ransom, a price for our lives, as he had a right to do, because our sin placed us under bondage to him. Jesus’ suffering and death on the Cross was to pay Satan—not God. Jesus gave Satan His life for our lives. So the “substitutionary” aspect of Jesus’ incarnation still remains, but different, as you can see.
Now I realize that this presentation is oversimplication to the highest degree—but as I said, this is written for everybody, and it has the main germ of the theories. It’s an easy base by which we can now discuss the issues. So here are my main problems with Anselm's theory:
1. Because God is a divine sovereign, does that mean He cannot forgive our sins? Did He send His Son to the cross based on an insatiable quest for justice, without mercy? Did He really “demand” payment for our sin, either from us or from His Son? Did He really have to pour out wrath because of our sin? This is what Anselm was saying. For one possible response, let’s look at Matthew 18:21-27:
Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
Consider also James 2:13: Mercy triumphs over judgment.
These verses clearly show that God, despite being a divine sovereign, wants to forgive and have mercy on us.
Consider this too: He requires us to forgive each other. Matthew 6:12, part of the Lord’s prayer says:
And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors
Would He assert justice without forgiveness and then tell us to practice forgiveness? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. On the other hand, by reading Anselm, you get the idea that God was inflexible, and wanted all justice and no mercy; that He wanted to pour wrath on His Son, that all this suffering by Jesus was His Father’s quest for blood appeasement. Now, I don’t want to take away from how we should have a righteous fear of God; He is not a “grandpa that overlooks my faults.” But I have a serious problem with the rigidity of God as One who is totally unforgiving—as Anselm suggests. Scriptures above say otherwise (read also the prodigal son, Luke 15).
2. The second problem I have is the issue of “who was Jesus paying” with His suffering and death—was He paying His Father, suggested by Anselm, or was He paying Satan, suggested by the church fathers’ classic theory? The key to that is the word “ransom” in Scripture. As Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say:
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
And as repeated in I Timothy 2:6:
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
So, given that Jesus was ransomed, here’s my question: To whom is a ransom supposed to be paid? Well, how much sense is it that a ransom be paid to the father of the one being held for ransom? Huh? You don’t need to watch many criminal shows on TV to see how senseless that sounds. Yet that’s what Anselm is suggesting. The classic theory, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was held as ransom by Satan—and any payment would be made to Satan. That makes more sense right away, since ransoms are paid to the bad guy who is holding the guy you want released.
The question you might have now is: What right did Satan have for holding Jesus? Well, here’s where the substitutionary aspect comes in. The problem was us. We were held. We, starting with Adam, have all sinned and have therefore put ourselves under Satan’s control. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know how much God hates sin. Jesus has said we all have a master; it is either God or Satan. Look at Matthew 6:24.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Note: “mammon” means wealth-driven—that’s serving Satan.
We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and thus start our accountable life, having sinned, under Satan’s mastery. He was our “father” if we’re unsaved. Further proof of that is how Jesus called those who don’t love Him children of the devil. Look at John 8:42-44a:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. .. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…
This is echoed in I John 3:10: In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
But God, thank Him, still loved us sinners, and wanted to free us from Satan’s control. Satan demanded ransom to release us. God’s Son was willing to pay that ransom, to be our substitute, placing Himself (temporarily, as it turned out) under Satan’s control in exchange for us. Satan was willing to accept this as ransom payment. His thinking was, by tormenting and killing Jesus, he would forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. By virtue of that ransom, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for by Jesus’ suffering and death, paid to Satan, and we were set free.
You want more Scriptural proof that Satan can and does dominate most people’s lives? Matthew 4:8-9 shows that Satan has control over the world:
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
He is, in fact, called the God of this age, per II Corinthians 4:4:
whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. Note: “this age” does not mean only that period of time.
Scripture is also clear on who is satisfied by the ranson of Jesus. Is it God or Satan? As Galatians 1:3-4 says, Jesus delivers (redeems) us—not from His Father (so says Anselm), but from this “evil present age”—that means Jesus bought us from Satan’s realm:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age
Finally, Acts 20:28 says: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock…to shepherd the church of God[a] which He purchased with His own blood.
Now think with me: Did Jesus purchase the church from His Father—so Anselm would say? Well, does that mean God had ownership of the church, so He had Jesus suffer so He could “sell” it to His Son who purchased it from Him? Huh? That makes no sense. No, the church was purchased for a ransom price from an enemy holding it up for ransom—Satan. That’s what a ransom is all about.
3. My third problem with Anselm is of an underlying, hidden fact of his theory. If we accept Anselm’s view that Jesus paid our debt to God, then God cannot burden us with our debt again. That means He cannot unsave us. As any good lawyer will tell you, reinstating a debt is impossible once it has been paid. Once your debt is paid, you’re done—it’s always paid. No retraction possible. This leans, as you can probably tell, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have a huge blog disputing that view, elsewhere on this site. That view is attractive, but Scripturally wrong.)
The classic theory of atonement, written by early church fathers, follows their expressed view against the theory of eternal security, the exact opposite. They’re saying, remember, that God was not “paid” for our sins; Satan was. God simply forgave our sins when we trust the work of Christ. God received no consideration (payment) for our sins. This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15, Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a debt-forgiveness is possible. Scripturally, this is also clearly taught in “the rest of the story” of the servant of Matthew 18 above. We left off with the Master forgiving his debt, verse 27. Let’s bring up Matthew 18:28-34:
“But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[a] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[b] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.”
After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we adopt “the ways of the world,” such as greed and unforgiveness as exampled here, we could lose our salvation (the debt is reimposed and you could be “delivered to the torturers.”) These verses clearly teach how we can lose salvation. (I’ve covered losing salvation in other blogs too).
I trust you agree that the Scriptural evidence backs the early church fathers. They have a better view of God from Scripture: God is forgiving, but if we deny Him in word or behavior, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let us know Him and love Him.
Acknowledgement to Dave Bercot’s CD, “Atonement #1.”
So let’s start with a definition: Atonement is defined by Unger’s Bible Dictionary as “the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins.”
Nothing could be more important, right? Now, I’m not here to challenge the definition—the problem is in the details. First, a word of background assumption: If there are two different theories on the same subject, I believe the correct one would more likely be the one that was believed by the earliest church fathers (we’re talking about the disciples of the apostles, and the next generation to, say, 250 AD—all before the church got corrupted by marriage to the State). That is based on two things: (1) Their literature is breathtaking in its knowledge of the context of Scripture; and they developed an ability to effectively back doctrinal theories with Scripture; and (2) If they had doctrinal questions, there was a disciple of Paul or Peter nearby (or only a generation or two removed) who could talk on the subject ad infinitum.
Well, there are indeed two different theories on Atonement. The theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (called the “Classic” theory) lasted from the church’s beginning under apostolic leadership for 1000 years, but it was overtaken by the “Satisfaction” theory of Anselm, a Roman Catholic church philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury around 1080. His theory was accepted by Catholics, and later, believe it or not, by the Reformers. Thus, most “main line” denominations believe this way as well. (Proofs of that; (1) and (3) are quotes from usually reliable Wikipedia: (1) Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred. (2) From the Baptist Confession of Faith: The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God. (3) The satisfaction view of the atonement is a theory in Christian theology about the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Western Christianity, specifically in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles).
So what are my problems with Anselm's theory, the one that is now acceptable by most—how could I challenge something that has been around almost a thousand years (1080-today)? Well, let’s start with a question: Which theory has been blessed by the Holy Spirit? The one that started in the Holy-Spirit-moved church, its beginning (see Acts 2), the Classic theory, right? Or should I follow the Anselm theory, the one that wasn’t considered for the first 1000 years of church history, never thought up by its brilliant theologians during that time; the one that didn’t bring the church out of the dark ages—in fact, church corruption was especially rampant for 500 more years after it came out? Gee, when I state it that way, the answer should be apparent.
So let’s take a closer look at Anselm’s “Satisfaction” theory. Firstly, what about his insistence that sin is “a debt to divine justice that must be paid,” that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He is saying that a sin against a sovereign—such as what God is—is too great to be forgiven, because it insults His majesty. So, says the theory, God could not forgive it. But is this based on Medieval chivalry, or Scripture? I suggest Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and you had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run your land effectively. This theory poses that God is a God of justice, not mercy.
The theory further says that God loved us enough to allow His Son to suffer and die on the Cross. His suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—they “appeased” His need for justice. Jesus’ death on the Cross was substitutionary. By Jesus enduring God’s wrath and paying for our sin, He took our place—our ransom has been paid to the Father, so we are now accepted by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since His wrath as payment for our sin was poured out upon His Son instead of us.
Now, for comparison: Here is the “classic” theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (from 50 AD to 250 they developed this; their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). They said that our sin put us in rebellion to God and under the control of Satan. Satan demanded a ransom, a price for our lives, as he had a right to do, because our sin placed us under bondage to him. Jesus’ suffering and death on the Cross was to pay Satan—not God. Jesus gave Satan His life for our lives. So the “substitutionary” aspect of Jesus’ incarnation still remains, but different, as you can see.
Now I realize that this presentation is oversimplication to the highest degree—but as I said, this is written for everybody, and it has the main germ of the theories. It’s an easy base by which we can now discuss the issues. So here are my main problems with Anselm's theory:
1. Because God is a divine sovereign, does that mean He cannot forgive our sins? Did He send His Son to the cross based on an insatiable quest for justice, without mercy? Did He really “demand” payment for our sin, either from us or from His Son? Did He really have to pour out wrath because of our sin? This is what Anselm was saying. For one possible response, let’s look at Matthew 18:21-27:
Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
Consider also James 2:13: Mercy triumphs over judgment.
These verses clearly show that God, despite being a divine sovereign, wants to forgive and have mercy on us.
Consider this too: He requires us to forgive each other. Matthew 6:12, part of the Lord’s prayer says:
And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors
Would He assert justice without forgiveness and then tell us to practice forgiveness? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. On the other hand, by reading Anselm, you get the idea that God was inflexible, and wanted all justice and no mercy; that He wanted to pour wrath on His Son, that all this suffering by Jesus was His Father’s quest for blood appeasement. Now, I don’t want to take away from how we should have a righteous fear of God; He is not a “grandpa that overlooks my faults.” But I have a serious problem with the rigidity of God as One who is totally unforgiving—as Anselm suggests. Scriptures above say otherwise (read also the prodigal son, Luke 15).
2. The second problem I have is the issue of “who was Jesus paying” with His suffering and death—was He paying His Father, suggested by Anselm, or was He paying Satan, suggested by the church fathers’ classic theory? The key to that is the word “ransom” in Scripture. As Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say:
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
And as repeated in I Timothy 2:6:
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
So, given that Jesus was ransomed, here’s my question: To whom is a ransom supposed to be paid? Well, how much sense is it that a ransom be paid to the father of the one being held for ransom? Huh? You don’t need to watch many criminal shows on TV to see how senseless that sounds. Yet that’s what Anselm is suggesting. The classic theory, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was held as ransom by Satan—and any payment would be made to Satan. That makes more sense right away, since ransoms are paid to the bad guy who is holding the guy you want released.
The question you might have now is: What right did Satan have for holding Jesus? Well, here’s where the substitutionary aspect comes in. The problem was us. We were held. We, starting with Adam, have all sinned and have therefore put ourselves under Satan’s control. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know how much God hates sin. Jesus has said we all have a master; it is either God or Satan. Look at Matthew 6:24.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Note: “mammon” means wealth-driven—that’s serving Satan.
We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and thus start our accountable life, having sinned, under Satan’s mastery. He was our “father” if we’re unsaved. Further proof of that is how Jesus called those who don’t love Him children of the devil. Look at John 8:42-44a:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. .. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…
This is echoed in I John 3:10: In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
But God, thank Him, still loved us sinners, and wanted to free us from Satan’s control. Satan demanded ransom to release us. God’s Son was willing to pay that ransom, to be our substitute, placing Himself (temporarily, as it turned out) under Satan’s control in exchange for us. Satan was willing to accept this as ransom payment. His thinking was, by tormenting and killing Jesus, he would forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. By virtue of that ransom, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for by Jesus’ suffering and death, paid to Satan, and we were set free.
You want more Scriptural proof that Satan can and does dominate most people’s lives? Matthew 4:8-9 shows that Satan has control over the world:
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
He is, in fact, called the God of this age, per II Corinthians 4:4:
whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. Note: “this age” does not mean only that period of time.
Scripture is also clear on who is satisfied by the ranson of Jesus. Is it God or Satan? As Galatians 1:3-4 says, Jesus delivers (redeems) us—not from His Father (so says Anselm), but from this “evil present age”—that means Jesus bought us from Satan’s realm:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age
Finally, Acts 20:28 says: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock…to shepherd the church of God[a] which He purchased with His own blood.
Now think with me: Did Jesus purchase the church from His Father—so Anselm would say? Well, does that mean God had ownership of the church, so He had Jesus suffer so He could “sell” it to His Son who purchased it from Him? Huh? That makes no sense. No, the church was purchased for a ransom price from an enemy holding it up for ransom—Satan. That’s what a ransom is all about.
3. My third problem with Anselm is of an underlying, hidden fact of his theory. If we accept Anselm’s view that Jesus paid our debt to God, then God cannot burden us with our debt again. That means He cannot unsave us. As any good lawyer will tell you, reinstating a debt is impossible once it has been paid. Once your debt is paid, you’re done—it’s always paid. No retraction possible. This leans, as you can probably tell, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have a huge blog disputing that view, elsewhere on this site. That view is attractive, but Scripturally wrong.)
The classic theory of atonement, written by early church fathers, follows their expressed view against the theory of eternal security, the exact opposite. They’re saying, remember, that God was not “paid” for our sins; Satan was. God simply forgave our sins when we trust the work of Christ. God received no consideration (payment) for our sins. This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15, Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a debt-forgiveness is possible. Scripturally, this is also clearly taught in “the rest of the story” of the servant of Matthew 18 above. We left off with the Master forgiving his debt, verse 27. Let’s bring up Matthew 18:28-34:
“But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[a] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[b] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.”
After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we adopt “the ways of the world,” such as greed and unforgiveness as exampled here, we could lose our salvation (the debt is reimposed and you could be “delivered to the torturers.”) These verses clearly teach how we can lose salvation. (I’ve covered losing salvation in other blogs too).
I trust you agree that the Scriptural evidence backs the early church fathers. They have a better view of God from Scripture: God is forgiving, but if we deny Him in word or behavior, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let us know Him and love Him.
Acknowledgement to Dave Bercot’s CD, “Atonement #1.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)