Religion archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for the 'Religion' Category

Donald Miller’s Prayer at the DNC

Published by Kenneth Martens August 26, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Current Events. 14 Comments

Yesterday (August 25, 2008) Christian writer Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz) said a prayer at the Democratic National Convention. His website has the transcript:

Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen.

“Heart of the average American”
Now, I disagree with a lot of what Miller said in that prayer (e.g., the presumption that teachers are underpaid, and the idea that government is responsible for providing healthcare to all) but those are political disagreements. Setting aside my political principles, the first statement in Miller’s prayer that bothers me is this: “Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world. A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.”

The heart of the average American is wicked and sinful, just like the heart of the average Indian or the average German or the average human being. I don’t know much about Miller’s theological convictions, but if America’s moral standing in this world is based upon the “heart of the average American” then the whole world is in trouble.

“Against the forces of injustice”
The second statement that bothers me almost escaped my attention. It is this: “I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice. Let Him be our example.” Actually, Jesus gave his life not to combat injustice, but to satisfy justice. It is Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life to pay the penalty for my sins and yours, in order that God’s wrath might be satisfied and a pardon extended.

A Brief Post on Giving

Published by Colin August 25, 2008 in Religion. 15 Comments

In any church one of the important areas where leadership and members need agreement is giving and financial management. My wife and I have recently started attending a new church, and in conversing on this subject with one of the pastors, I thought it might be nice to summarize my own views on giving (if just for my own personal organisation).

First of all, I do not believe in a tithe requirement for Christians. There is really no correlation between Old Testament (even pre-law) tithing and modern Christians giving 10% of their gross income to a local church establishment. Even without getting into the more complicated arguments for and against, it should be blatantly obvious that there really is not a cut and dried comparison here.

What I would argue, is that Christians are to give in the exact and literal way that the bible ordains:

without compulsion at all - either form a rule, expectation or judgement
from an open-heart - that is by free-will (2 Cor 9:5)
based on cost, not value (2 Cor 8:2)
without causing financial burden or incurring debt (2 Cor 8:12)
So as not to become a burden to others (Gal 6:5)

Two Examples of Methods
The church we are now attending passes a basket around. The church we formerly attending kept a box at the side of the church. I can see advantages and disadvantages in both methods.

In passing a basket around, giving is encouraged as a corporate act of worship unto God. It provides an opportunity for teaching the assembly about giving and then providing an opportunity to practice this essential element of Christianity. However, it could also be considered a more “compulsory” method, as the giving is done a little more publicly. I also think there is a temptation for both sinful pride and recognition by those who give and sinful judgement and pride towards those who do not give in this manner.

With the box off to the side, then the giving is removed from the public eye. The feelings of compulsion are removed and temptations of judgement and pride are reduced. However, the worship element is also minimized - and giving can become like just another bill. Moreover, there is also the possibly that such a minimal attitude towards giving forsakes discipling the members towards a healthy attitude of giving.

Who Should Know?
Christians should realize that there is no gift that is anonymous from God. But who in the church should know the giving? Again, I am quite torn on this issue.

On the one hand, there is a strong message in Matthew 6 that giving should be done in anonymity towards men. At the same time, giving is an area where pastors should be able to disciple the flock.Thirdly, modern tax codes and exemptions for both churches and individuals greatly incentivise keeping records of who gave what and for what purpose. I believe that I favour the anonymity approach, but I can see how it might be a pragmatic compromise to keep records.

Putting The Church First

Published by Bryan August 20, 2008 in Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 11 Comments

The Archbishop of Canterbury is in a very odd situation.

To briefly explain for those who will not read the linked to article, before Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury he held to the position that it is wrong to condemn homosexual relationships. In fact, in personal letters that have come to light he says that a consensual loving homosexual relationship may not be against scripture. This is in opposition to official Anglican Church teaching, and is at odds with the public position he has taken recently as Archbishop (As has been pointed out by his defenders). This therefore puts the Archbishop in a position where he is publicly defending the churches teaching, yet in all likelihood, privately disagrees with it. The liberals believe he has betrayed their cause, the conservatives don’t believe he can be trusted. Both of those positions opposing him seem to be quite clear, but what of those bishops who are defending him?

Is there anyway that the Archbishop positions in this matter can be reconciled? I think they can, if it is recognized that he is putting the churches understanding of scripture above his own understanding of scripture. I do not doubt that Rowan Williams understands scripture not to condemn loving homosexual relationship, but he recognizes that this understanding is out of sync with the historic Christian understanding. Taking his position as Archbishop seriously he has recognized that he must protect the churches understanding above his own. Rowan Williams has separated what he believes as a theologian from what he practises as a church leader. Is this however valid?

I must first applaud Rowan Williams’ commitment to the church and his office. Putting weight in how the church understands scripture is something that needs to be encouraged among Christians today. Today’s Christians are individualistic. They have no time for traditional understandings, or abiding by decisions made outside of their control. The Archbishop’s willingness to abide by the churches understanding is refreshing. Scripture is the book of the church, not of the lone wolf.

I of course disagree with the Archbishop’s personal understanding of the topic of homosexuality, yet I would rather have him admit what he does believe then cover it up.

I have often asked myself what I would do if I was put in a similar situation as the Archbishop; one where I come to, after much study, an understanding of scripture that is different then what the church teaches. I have faced this decision on a local church level, having reached conclusions on the sacraments that were incompatible with the church I was a member of, but a question such as homosexuality is a bigger question. What if I was to, no matter how much I wanted to agree, disagree with the historic church on a question such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or justification?

I have said many times before to friends that a person cannot go against what they believe is right. That is, I cannot simply stop believing something if I am convinced it is true. I can however subject myself to follow an authority that I disagree with if I believe following that authority is more important then my personal beliefs. This may sound strange in a modern world where freedom is placed as the most important goal, but in a world view where community and tradition is put above freedom holding to such a position would not be unnatural.

In the perfect world my understanding of scripture (as well as everyone else’s including the Archbishop’s) would match up with what the church has historically taught. It doesn’t. I therefore have to decide on each individual issue if I think my understanding is so much more important then my commitment to the church, and if the issue in question is worth going against the churches teaching over. I also have to decide what the church has historically understood (which is a huge task in and of itself). This, or something similar is the position the Archbishop is in, and it seems that he has chosen the church on this particular issue..

Now I would much prefer the Archbishop to actually be convinced homosexuality is sinful, and by the Spirit’s working I hope that one day to happen. I also think it is important for the leader of the church to actually believe what the church teaches. However, with the situation being what it is, I am happy that the liberal who is Archbishop does take the church seriously since there are many liberals and conservatives who do not.

Paganism in Mainstream Christianity: Divination of Feelings

Published by Colin August 18, 2008 in General and Religion. 14 Comments

Until I read Decision Making and the Will of God, I would have never considered a significant aspect of my faith to be rooted in paganism. Yet, upon understanding the nature of God’s will and how it applies to my life, I can see how grave an error I was making, and that my walk was significantly neutered.

Divination is a major problem in Christianity among fundamentalist, bible-believing Christians. It is the practice of using normal and explainable objects, phenomena, circumstances and occurrences to understand and interpret the will of the gods (or in Christianity’s case - God).

Take, for example, this “method” for determining “God’s will in your life:”

…listen to that still small voice inside of you. The burden of the call upon your life will outweigh your ambitions which you have established. If the Lord wants you to do a specific work for Him, He will give you a burden for that work. Your heart will keep drawing you to that specific task or work. As the day draws closer for you to accomplish and know God’s will for your life, your burden will become heavier to accomplish it. If you run away from God’s will, you will always go back because the burden will not go away. The burden also has love attached. And, of course, when we pray for His will to be made known in our lives, He will tell us. As Psalm 143:10 says, “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.”

In other words, we are to use our feelings and impression to divine the will of God. But scripture warns us against this:

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9 NKJ)

With a pagan world-view, it is much easier to see this error. If someone said that they believed the trees were speaking to them to not cut them down - they just felt a burden for the trees so strongly - we would accurately determine that such a person was insane. But if Christians substitute “God” (and that adds a lot of weight) then they can say something similar, such as, “I just feel led to be a pastor - I think God is telling me this is His will for my life.”

This problem has been minimized in individuals who actually read their bibles, and can see that there are clear biblical guidelines to determine these things. Again, using the example, if their “calling” to be a pastor is realized after meeting qualifications for that position in the Word, then the error is harmless (though it is still wrong). But an immature Christian, who might have less knowledge and wisdom regarding the Word, might very well miss the fact that he does not biblically qualified for his “calling” and just run on what his “burden of the call” is saying.

I personally, do not believe that God “calls” Christian in this way. I view things much more plainly - God has provided men with a very clear set of principles for living in the bible which must be taken literally and at face value. He has also given men the freedom to make godly choices within those parameters, including how to chose whether a ministry role is correct.

If I would like to go to Kenya to share the gospel, I need not wait until I have a “burden” overwhelming me, gradually getting stronger and stronger to go. Rather, I need to check my desires against what the bible commands, and if it is correct, to go with it. It is never wrong for a mature Christian to preach the gospel. God is not ever going to disprove of his commands being obeyed. In fact, I would argue that the “sacrifice” of waiting on one’s feelings of a calling, is a much more likely offence to God. Instead, we should be quick to obey.

Christians should beware the kind of cavalier mysticism that is currently being embraced as determining God’s will.

Ask ZFT: Sermon-stealing

Published by Kenneth Martens August 13, 2008 in Religion. 7 Comments

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds recently pointed me to Andy Naselli’s blog entry about Using and Abusing Sermons. I’m going to quote the relevant post, and then open it up to the Zeal for Truth readers to respond to the question: is it appropriate for a preacher to reuse another person’s sermon?

At the annual pastor’s colloquium for The Gospel Coalition last May, the pastors discussed future enhancements on TGC website. When discussing the new database of resources, John Piper strongly suggested that a note be added against sermon-stealing, something he “abominates.” Everyone seemed to agree. Here’s the note that is currently on the bottom of the resources page:

A NOTE ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF SERMONS

The instant availability of thousands of expository sermons and addresses prompts us to reflect a little on how they should not be used, and how they should be used.

To take the latter first: many of our Council members avidly read the sermons of others, or, increasingly commonly, listen to them while they are driving or walking or jogging. Good preaching not only opens up texts, but helps us learn how others tackle the challenge of structure, apply Scripture to their particular congregations, relate their texts to the central themes of God and the gospel, and much more. We soon sense their urgency and God-given unction. We are sent back to the study and to our knees to become better workers who do not need to be ashamed of the way we handle the word of truth.

The bad way to listen to the sermons of others is to select one such sermon on the topic or passage you have chosen and then simply steal it, passing it off as if it is your own work. This is, quite frankly, theft, and thieves, Paul tells us, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:10). Yet in some ways that is not the most serious aspect of this form of plagiarism. Rather, it is the deep damage you are doing to yourself and others by not studying the Bible for yourself. Ministers of the gospel are supported by their congregations so they will give themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer. That demands rigorous study. A faithful minister of the gospel is never merely a biological tape recorder or CD, thoughtlessly parroting what someone else learned, thought through, prayed over, and recorded. Indulge in this exercise and before long you will starve your own soul—and, no matter how good the sermons you steal, your ministry will sooner or later, and deservedly, become sterile, for the stamp of inauthenticity will be all over you.

One helpful suggestion: Listen to many sermons, not just one or two. You will be far less likely to steal, and far more likely to be stimulated and helped, if you listen to five or ten sermons than if you listen to one.

So what do you think? Is “sermon-stealing” an abomination that preachers should avoid?

What is Worship?

Published by Chris A August 11, 2008 in Religion. 4 Comments

(All scripture references taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.)

In my previous article entitled Praise and Worship: What it Isn’t and What it Is, I attempted to contrast a biblical description of praise with what is commonly called “praise and worship” music. The basic dictionary definition of the word praise is the offering of grateful homage in words or song, as an act of worship. This begs the question: What is worship? Let us begin with a basic dictionary definition once again - reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. So we can clearly see that worship begins with a condition of the heart; it cannot be done casually or in a nonchalant manner.

Worship Predicated on Humility
When we look at worship in the Old Testament we often see that it was accompanied by a bowing posture. This posture denotes a humble attitude of submission to God. Throughout the gospels, beginning with the three magi, we see that Jesus was worshipped in this same manner. Paul he assumed this posture when praying for the believers at Ephesus, saying, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 3:14).

Because worship is predicated on humility, it is impossible for a proud person to worship God. The act of bowing in itself does not constitute worship unless it is a heartfelt act of adoration and honor to God. It is impossible to honor God with a proud heart. Pride is of satanic origin; it was pride that motivated Lucifer to exalt himself above the Most High.

In Spirit and Truth
When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, there is an indication that he addressed cultural pride when speaking about worship. When we read the account in John 4 it is evident that there was ethnic tension between the Samaritans and the Jews. The Samaritan woman and Jesus’ disciples were taken aback by the fact that Jesus would even speak to a Samaritan (John 4:9, 27). Pay close attention to this exchange:

19The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.

20″ Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

21Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

22″ You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

23″But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

24″God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Even though the woman knew Jesus was a prophet, she immediately wanted to turn the conversation into a debate about the proper place to worship. Why did she bring this up when Jesus was clearly speaking about something else altogether – namely her sinful lifestyle? I believe this response demonstrates her proud allegiance to the Samaritan religious tradition.

Jesus told this woman that the “true worshipers” must worship the Father in spirit and truth. In other words, Jesus was nullifying the validity of the idea that God had to be worshipped only in certain places. God is a spirit whose residence is not limited to a mountain.

What does it mean to worship God in spirit and in truth? First, I believe it has to do with an emphasis on the condition of the heart in relation to the born again experience rather than rituals that were carried out under the Law of Moses. When we take into account the specific reference Jesus made to God as Father, and examine the conversation he had with the woman about living water, we see that he was speaking of the new birth. Water is a type of the Spirit. Through the new birth sons and daughters of God, the true worshipers, are born of the Spirit.

The phrase “in truth” denotes knowledge of the one being worshiped. Also, this statement about worshiping God in spirit and truth is predicated on what Jesus said in verse 22: “You worship what you do not know…” Many people “ignorantly worship” a God that is really unknown to them, as did the people at Mars’ Hill in Acts 17. This kind of worship does not please the Father because there is not sufficient knowledge present to constitute truth.

Beyond simply knowing God, worshiping in truth must involve acting in accordance with what is known. In other words, there must be no contradiction between what one knows and how he acts. We are to be doers of the word (truth), rather than hearers only. Those who receive truth through the word, and refuse to allow their actions to be in agreement with it are self-deluded (James 1:22). Basically these people are lying to themselves. This is not truth.
Continue reading ‘What is Worship?’

A Biblical Critique of Christian Zionism

Published by Chris A August 6, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Politics. 12 Comments

Zionist tendencies among American Christians have become ever apparent. Many times we hear the term Judeo-Christian, signifying an historical and theological link between the Hebrew people and Christians. It is obvious that a link exist. Most Christians understand that the Hebrew people were the chosen people of God, through whom the scriptures and messianic prophecies came. Jesus was a Hebrew from the tribe of Judah, and all of the first Christians were Jews. Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament scriptures written to the Jews. Often this term, Judeo-Christian, is used to describe shared core values between Jews and Christians.

Support of Israel
Christian Zionism, while recognizing historical and theological connections between Christians and Jews, takes the concept a bit further. Current geopolitical events surrounding Israel are often compared against eschatological prophecies, with the state of Israel being viewed as the favored side in any conflict with her neighbors; these conflicts, of course, are generally with respect to what is regarded among opposing sides as holy land. Arab Palestinians believe they have a right to the land, and claim to have been disenfranchised by Israel. The Christian Zionist perspective takes sides against Palestine, citing God’s covenant with Abraham in which the holy land was promised to Abraham’s descendants. The Arab Palestinians, although also descendants of Abraham, are not considered to be rightful heirs to the land because they descended from Ishmael and not Isaac. The dispute over land rights has been a particular point of international contention ever since the end of World War II, with Arab and Muslim nations typically supporting the Palestinians.

Biblical Justification for Support of the Nation State
As has already been mentioned, support of Israel is in part predicated on the belief that the Holy Land rightly belongs to the Jews. But there is another common reason many Christians believe support of Israel is necessary, and it is found in Genesis 12:3.

“And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Another scripture often used to muster up Christian support of Israel is Romans 15:27.

Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.

There are other scriptures used by Christian Zionists to back up their theology, but these two references are among the most common.

Problems with the Use of Scripture
The problem I have with Genesis 12:3 being used as a reason to support the nation-state of Israel is that it equates Abraham and his descendants with the modern nation state. Certainly there are descendants of Abraham in the Israeli government, but are we to believe that they represent all his descendants? Even many of the citizens of Israel, as well as other Jews, oppose much of what that government does. Are they too in danger of being cursed?

The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible, and since the Bible is progressive revelation, the Old Testament should always be interpreted in light of the New Testament. Consider Paul’s explanation of Genesis 12:3 found in Galatians 3:

6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer… 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”– 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Here we find a very different interpretation of the Genesis account. Paul, himself a Hebrew, says the blessing of all nations was in relation to their receiving the Seed of Abraham, who is Christ.

I will not dismiss the possibility of a dual meaning of this scripture altogether, but it is clear that Genesis 12 in no way should be interpreted as blind support for any government.

Now, with Romans 15, let’s look at the context of what Paul said to determine whether this had anything to do with support of Israel.

26For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.

Verse 26 plainly reveals that the subject under discussion was monetary support of the Jewish Christians. What did Paul mean when he said that the Gentiles had shared in their spiritual things? Well, he could have meant that the Gentiles were made partakers of the knowledge of God through the Jewish Christians. But I tend to think that he was speaking specifically about the “saints in Jerusalem” since this is where the church was born. At any rate, it is clear that Paul was speaking about Christians who were Jewish, rather than all of Israel.
Continue reading ‘A Biblical Critique of Christian Zionism’

Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

Published by Bryan August 5, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 6 Comments

Recently a discussion arose on this blog about the status of people who followed after God before Christ died. In this entry I will attempt to show that old testament saints were born again and had the same status before God as we do today. This is not to say that the experience of a believer before Christ and those who believe after Christ are exactly the same, but I believe there is more continuity between the experiences then often assumed. We will begin our discussion with a brief examination of John 3:1-10:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Here Christ is explaining that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. He offers no date as to when this type of experience is to begin, it reads as if one must already be born again to enter the kingdom. But I want to draw attention to the last line in particular; Jesus assumes that Nicodemus should know this. Jesus is not laying down a new teaching here, this is what the Old Testament teaches and as a teacher of Israel you should know this. It is taught and shown throughout the Old Testament (as well as the new) that one is saved by being born again, this is the simplest reading of this passage. For the purposes of this entry the question of what “water” refers to in this passage will be left aside and we will examine only the role of God’s Spirit in this action. To prove this several passages will be examined that shows this.

So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him (Num 27:18).

With Joshua (see also Caleb Numbers 14:21) we have a clear example of an OT saint who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Romans 8:7-11 explains that the indwelling of the Spirit is what gives life to the believer (a more detailed explanation of what Jesus was discussing with Nicodemus). The concept of the Spirit being in the believer is therefore not something new to the New Testament, it happened in the Old. A further explanation of what this means is given in the New Testament, but although Christ’s connection to the the Spirit is not explained until the New Testament does not mean it did not exist in the Old. The OT saints understood in part, but they still understood part (or should have) and took part in the Spirit.

And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deu 30:6).

The saints in the OT had circumcised hearts, they loved God with their hearts. This can only be true of someone born again, only the Spirit can do this. Romans 2:8-29, explaining further on this as the NT does, making it clear that this is done through the Spirit.

But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you (1Sa 13:14).

Here we see why God choose David to be king; He wanted someone who was after Hid own heart. Could someone be after God’s heart and not be born again? Romans 8:8 says that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” How does one leave the flesh but by being born again? How can one please God but by being after His heart?

When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day (1Sa 10:9).

Often it is assumed that being given a new heart by God is what makes one born again and that it happens only in the New Testament, yet the one instance where it is explicitly said to have happened in scripture takes place in the Old Testament. King Saul when he was made King by God was given a new heart. We also see in Ezekiel 18:31 God telling people to turn away from their sin and embrace a new heart. The people in the OT had an understanding of what this meant and had the ability to do so.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar (Psa 51:10-19).

Here we have King David in the OT touching on all aspects of what it means to be born again. The Spirit, joy in salvation, true worship of God, and a heart set after God. Of course this passage brings up the question of if someone can have the Spirit taken away from them or not, and is the answer different in the OT from the NT. Although I have recently become convinced that someone can have the Spirit removed both in the OT and the NT, I do not believe a view that holds that the Spirit can be removed in the OT and not the NT proves that OT saints were not born again. Is not being able to give up one’s salvation what it means to be born again? What scriptures that discuss being born again makes that the central point? It may be argued that it is a difference between the OT and NT (and as I admitted at the beginning there are differences) but I don’t believe it’s a difference (assuming it is different which will take a whole other entry to work out) that has anything to do with what it means to be born again

All of this now begs the questions; if the saints in the Old Testament were born again how were they before Christ?

When this topic was discussed in another blog entry a few weeks ago John 1:12-13 was brought up as proof that a direct knowledge of the incarnate Jesus was needed to be born again, but is that what that passage teaches?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus does not come and dwell incarnate in this passage until verse 14 when the Word becomes flesh, yet verse 12 and 13 speak of being born of God. How is that possible? Verses 10 and 11 explain; Jesus was in the world He just was not incarnate yet. The saints in the Old Testament received Christ in this form and were born again. They did not fully understand who it was that they were embracing, but they trusted God and had faith that He would send a Messiah who would save them from their sin. This was the experience of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. They had placed their faith in a coming saviour, they embraced Him even though He had not yet been born. For this they were part of those who became children to God, they were born again.

The Christ was known to those in the Old Testament through the shadows in the temple, through the prophets, and through their history as a nation. Trusting in God and His Messiah was how one received the Spirit of god, how one was given a new heart and how one loved God. Those who believe that the Old Testament saints were not born again must show how the born again experience we have today differs in these regards.

The Futility of Debate: Rethinking Acts 17

Published by Colin August 4, 2008 in Apologetics. 3 Comments

The speaker in church yesterday made an argument that I had never heard before, yet really caused me to reconsider an often cited portion of scripture. Acts 17 is a very popular chapter to cite in the argument of cultural sensitivity and reasoned debate for the purposes of evangelism. Paul is upheld as speaking in a very wise and clever way to the wishy-washy Athenians - using their own literature and even their own incorrect religion to wrangle a salvation message out of it.

In fact, to my own shame, I once used this passage to publicly confront a radical street-preacher who was challenging a crowd at the University of Oregon to repent. I argued that what he was saying was correct, but his message was not in the spirit of sensitivity and wisdom which Paul displayed in Acts 17.

But the speaker on Sunday made the argument that Paul was not successful in this method. There was no church ever established in Athens and the argument was likely forgotten in favour of the next new thing within a few days. I think this is a very reasonable argument. It has caused me to rethink Acts 17.

As we know the bible is impartial, and carries both the successes and mistakes of God’s people. We cannot assume that just because it is in the bible, that it is automatically correct and approved. Perhaps this is one of those failures that is recorded in biblical history. After all, we do not ever see Paul using this method again. The stinging indictments in places such as Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 5 are in bold contrast to Acts 17.

I think that evangelists such as Ray Comfort have it right - that ultimately salvation does not some through arguing with the intellect, but by piercing the heart with the law. Charles Spurgeon made the same case:

If men do not understand the law, they will not feel that they are sinners. And if they are not consciously sinners, they will never value the sin offering. There is no healing a man till the law has wounded him, no making him alive till the law has slain him.

In this interview, Ray Comfort was being grilled a little on his message for not being sensitive enough to his audience. But really, an approach like the Way of The Master is an acceptable way to deal with those people who are just looking for endless philosophising.

The Athenians were aptly described by Luke as those who “spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). These people were full to the brim with abstract knowledge, philosophy and theory on all manner of subjects. However, they were never convinced that they must do anything about it - but merely debated these things for entertainment.

In many ways, the church has adopted this attitude. We go to church on Sunday, not be stimulated to love and good deeds, but to hear some new thing. We want our speakers and music to entertain us, and the reason we open the bible is to seek after hidden knowledge (”God please reveal your truth to me”) rather than to obey what we already know.

Even in my own personal study, I have been convicted of this attitude. When I pray before I open scripture, I now pray that God would give me the courage to obey what I read, rather than asking him to reveal some new thing to me. If we cannot change our attitudes as Christians, then it will be even more difficult to apply this understanding to the way we speak to non-believers.

The Libertarian Paradox

Published by Constitutional Conservati July 28, 2008 in Religion. 32 Comments

Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:

… which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.

The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.

Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.

Obviously Libertarians disagree.

Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.

Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.

It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.

But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.

And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.

Motives, Actions, Results

COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.

Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).

Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.

Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.

This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)

Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).

Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
Continue reading ‘The Libertarian Paradox’

Zeal For Truth