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.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
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)