The Mission

Portuguese Official Hontar: We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.
Papal Ambassador Altamirano: No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world... thus have I made it.
_________________________________________

Last night I stayed up very late to watch a movie that my pastor recommended to me. It was the 1986 film, The Mission. This movie stars Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons. The basic plot revolves around the work of the Jesuits in South America during the middle of the 18th century.

Two forces were competing on that continent in that era. The Catholic church was working to establish missions amongst the native populations in order to preach the gospel, educate, and "civilize" the tribes. On the other hand, the Portuguese were in league with the passive Spainsh to round up these local peoples and sell them into slavery so that the plantations would gain even more financial reward.

At the heart of the movie is the story of one Jesuit priest (Jeremy Irons) who risks his life to bring faith and culture to a certain tribe living "above the falls." He is initially opposed by a slavetrading mercenary (Robert DeNiro). However, as the plot progresses we see DeNiro kill his brother in a fit of rage and subsequently seek penance from the priest, who has came back to town for a visit.

Irons character forces a hard physical labor on DeNiro and an even harder spiritual task. Both men climb back up to the Indians and DeNiro falls prostrate before the very people he used to capture and sell. Eventually, DeNiro is fully accepted by the tribe and even inducted into the Jesuit order.

The story then takes a new turn as a papal emissary arrives to judge whether the missions should be allowed to remain in the area and by default whether the Indians can continue to live peacefully in the asylum provided by the church OR if they will be forced into the jungle again and into Portuguese hands.

This official from the Holy See proceeds to weigh his options and he decides that closing the missions and pulling support from the Indians is the only way to protect the future role of the Jesuit order in South America against the political power of slavetrading Portuguese influence that seeks the complete removal of the church.

When this decision is announced the film again takes a new turn. Both Irons and DeNiro refuse to go back with the Pope's messenger and are apparently excommunicated. They stay with the tribe and pledge to assist in the preparation for the coming military attack. While Irons holds fast to his cloth and displays a pacifist attitude to the end, the DeNiro character renounces his vows and teaches the local warriors the art of fighting.

At the end of the movie I felt as if I had seen several movies in one. There is a faith based drama that pulls on the heart, a political intrigue that gets at the nerves, and an action sequence that pumps the heart pretty quickly. After watching the movie I saw (4) major themes that I wanted to elaborate on and explore.

1 - REDEMPTION THRU GRACE

The first thing we gather from the movie is the potential for a man to be cleansed from his sins by the grace of the one he has offended. DeNiros's character is a vile man who captures the tribes-people, treats them brutally, and then sells them like property to the highest bidder. His rage is exhibited in a deadly way when he murders his brother out of jealousy.

However, after the murder it is the weight of his conscience that leads him to the sanctuary of the church and the gentle hand of Jeremy Irons. In love, Irons agrees to give DeNiro a harsh penance - more for DeNiro's psychological well-being then for any spiritual need I think. As DeNiro drags all of his old armor and weapons up the pathless trek to the top of the falls we see a foreshadowing of the true difficulty he is about to deal with.

At the top of the falls, DeNiro is forced to face the tribespeople, those very individuals who have missing relatives at DeNiro's hand. Knelt before them and crying we see a brokenness in DeNiro that is accepted by the Indians in mercy.

This was a great picture to me of the grace that God gives us. It is he who we have chiefly offended (Psalm 51) and it is his forgiveness that we need. Yet he, like the Indians with DeNiro, is under no obligation to have mercy on us. We have done wrong and we deserve the punishment we get. DeNiro deserved to be held in captivity, if not killed for his actions towards those natives. Yet, God has been gracious and loving and he has orchestrated a plan in which his mercy is given to us as we (like DeNiro) fall before him broken in repentance.

2 - UNREACHED PEOPLES

The historical context of this film was all about the role of the Catholic church in seeking to set up missions and convert the Indian tribes to the worship of the true God who has revealed himself in Christ. Some liberal pluralists have a lot of angst over this type of proselyting. However, as a Christian I must be aware that I have the medicine (in the gospel) that a sick people need. For me not to want to see them come to faith is actually the unloving act. Also, unlike some religions, Christianity is not a faith that (by its doctrine) ever teaches compulsory belief OR heavy tax/ execution. Brining the good news to unreached peoples is a gentle, if dangerous thing to do which preserves the native's own choice.

What many of us don't realize today is that we live in a world that is full of many people groups which are still unreached OR barely reached. The current number is that 40% of the people in this world have never heard of the grace of Jesus Christ and his work on the cross. In some ways I wish that I felt the call for long-term overseas mission work. It is a noble endeavor for the Kingdom. More information on these unreached peoples can be found at ( http://www.joshuaproject.net/).

3 - POLITICS & RELIGION

Another aspect of this movie is the portrayal of the danger that comes when the state and the church are intermixed to any substantial degree. History bears out the truth that as Chrisitianity became more and more affiliated with the government (after the 300s), the faith was compromised for secular gains. This is in large measure the problem with Catholicism. Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, etc... These things are not the logical outworking of the teachings of Christ or of the Scripture, they are misguided and evil actions that use religion as a mask to hide their true political intentions.

In The Mission, we see the messenger from the Vatican come on the scene to judge the future of the missions inside a political framework. Ultimately, he decides to cut them off and give the Portugese free reign. He tries to justify his decision by saying that it was necessary to keep the Jesuits from being expelled (writ large). However, by the end of the movie he is remorseful at his decision - see the quote at top of the post.

Why? Why does he feel guilty in the end about his actions? Because he knows, like all of us, that real objective right and wrong exist and that God has revealed them to us. He knows that abandoning the tribes people was a death sentence and that it was ultimately a political and not a moral decision. He wishes he had the courage to have made the correct decision. If only many of our politicians today were at least so remorseful - hardly.

The great thing about Protestant denominations and the nation of America is that they are designed to keep the state from picking one brand of faith and then claiming it as the national belief. It is by the proper separation of church and state that we can hope to avoid situations like the one shown in the movie.

4 - FIGHT OR STAND FIRM?

The last thing I took away from the movie was the contrasting views of the two Jesuits played by Irons and DeNiro, as the army advanced on the native village. Irons character held the belief that God is love and that violence, even against evil, was not in keeping with faith. DeNiro saw himself as a righteous agent of God's protective wrath. He felt that fighting an immoral army that was intent on killing innocent believers was a duty for the sake of truth.

I was torn watching these two men face the end in such starkly different ways. As a former Marine, I have a tendency to keep a gun by my bed and to be ready to throw down as needed. Yet, when I observe the early church, I see complete non-violent martyrdom at the hands of Rome (which largely accounted for the flourishment of Christianity).

I am still unclear as to the proper response for a believer to have in the face of direct, unjust, aggression. I know that the Romans 13 tells us that government has authority to wield the sword to keep citizens safe, but I wonder if that applies to the individual on a daily basis.

CONCLUSION

At the end of the day, I want to highly recommend this movie to anyone who has even remote interest in the subject matter it deals with. You will be engaged by the plot and the performances and you will come out a wiser person.

PS - There is a lot of non-sexual tribal nudity (of all kinds), so be careful with the kids around.

God and Evil

Fox News just reported that a Boston man went crazy and killed two of his three juvenile sisters yesterday, decapitating one of them (who was 5 years old) in front of a cop responding to a 911 call.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511340,00.html

As this little girl was brutally killed at her own brother's hands, her birthday cake sat on a nearby table. On her day of celebration, she was taken from this world.

When I hear things like this, I can sympathize with the atheist and their only decent argument:" how can a loving, powerful, and personal God allow so much evil and suffering in the world?"

I have done a lot of apologetics study and I know all the "correct" answers to that question...from the thought that it is self-refuting for the atheist to declare anything evil if their is no objective moral law-giver to the argument that the book of Job and the letter to the church in Rome put forth - who are we as the molding clay to question our potter and his sovereign decrees? Yet, today I was rocked to my core by this story. A gut wrenching revulsion came on me like it hasn't before.

Oddly enough, I recently became a regular attender to a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) church and as my day wore on, I clicked over to the PCA webpage for a look. Immediately I was drawn to a link for the PCA web magazine called "by Faith" (www.byfaithonline.com). The header article of that magazine today was "Why Does a Good God Permit Evil? by Dr. Jay Sklar (Issue Number 23, March 2009) Providence??? I have reporduced it here for you:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

David Hume, the famous 18th-century philosopher, framed the issue as succinctly as anyone: “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

Much closer to our time, philosopher H.J. McCloskey, in his 1962 article “The Problem of Evil,” describes the situation as follows: “The problem of evil is a very simple one to state. There is evil in the world; yet the world is said to be the creation of a good and omnipotent God. How is this possible? Surely a good, omnipotent God would have made a world free of evil of any kind.”

You don’t have to be a philosopher to feel this tension. All of us experience various types of evil, whether great or small, on a regular basis. Why would a good and all-powerful God allow this? Satisfying answers do not spring readily to mind.

It is therefore no surprise that the presence of evil drives many people to conclude that such a God does not exist. The logic is straightforward: “A God who is good and all-powerful cannot allow evil to exist, but evil does exist, therefore there is no good and all-powerful God.”

Obviously, many others come to a different conclusion. Despite the presence of evil, millions today do believe that God is both good and all-powerful. For some, the reality of evil causes pain but no tension; it is a sad fact of life in a fallen world. For others, however, the tension persists. They don’t give up their faith, but feel at times like their faith is shaky, or even that they’re somehow being dishonest, like those refusing to acknowledge a bad diagnosis.

So what can we say about the problem of evil? To answer this question we must ask five more.

Question 1: What do we mean by “evil”?

It’s important to begin here because we use the word “evil” in at least three different ways.

To begin, we sometimes use the term loosely to refer to things we don’t like, such as fruitcake or the DMV office (or the New York Yankees). That’s not the type of evil we’re discussing here.

Second, we sometimes use the word to refer to some sort of harm, misfortune, or negative circumstance we choose to bring upon ourselves. For example, I love to run. In fact, I love to run so much that I began training for a marathon. Now when training for a marathon, they say to build up your pace gradually, otherwise you will end up with an injury. But I went out for a long run at a pace that was way too fast for my poorly-trained body. The resulting injury meant I had to completely give up running for a time.

Interestingly, even though I knew this was entirely my fault, I still found myself saying, “Lord, why me?” And even though the answer was obvious, I wanted to blame someone else. Since God could have prevented this, he happened to be my first choice.

Here’s another example: What happens if a man is unfaithful to his wife and she leaves him? The suffering will be real, but it’s suffering he has brought upon himself. The responsibility is his, not God’s. These types of evil—the ones we choose to bring upon ourselves—are not what we’re talking about either.

Today we’re talking about evil in a third sense: the suffering we cannot control. Sometimes it is due to the moral choices of others: a parent abuses us; a drunk driver kills a beloved friend; our parents divorce. Other times the suffering comes from natural events: a hurricane destroys a city; a tsunami wipes out 250,000 people; a child is stricken with leukemia. It is this type of evil—the suffering we can’t control or prevent—that leads to the “problem of evil.” It is in the face of this type of suffering that we sometimes conclude, “Surely a good and all-powerful God does not exist.”
And this leads to our second question.

Question 2: Does the problem of evil prove that there is no good and all-powerful God?

For many, the answer to this question is a slam-dunk: “Of course it does.”

But how so? What does the argument look like? It’s not enough simply to declare this. We have to explain why the presence of evil leads us to this conclusion. For example, consider the following sentence: “All single men are bachelors; therefore, Abraham is not a bachelor.” As it stands, this is not an argument; the first statement does not necessarily lead to the second. In order for this to be an argument, we need to add another statement: “All single men are bachelors; Abraham is not a single man; therefore, Abraham is not a bachelor.” Now we have an argument.

Similarly, if we say, “Evil exists; therefore there is no good and all-powerful God,” we have not made an argument. The first statement does not necessarily lead to the second. We need other statements in between. Perhaps the most common approach goes as follows: “Evil exists; a good and all-powerful God would not permit evil unless there was a justifiable reason; if there were a justifiable reason, it would be apparent to us; there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for evil; therefore such a God does not exist.” Now we have an argument. The argument only works, of course, if we know that each of the additional statements is true. Are they?

Many have pointed out there is a huge assumption here, namely, that if a good and all-powerful God has reasons for allowing evil, then we as finite human beings would be able to figure them out . But why should we assume this to be true? As finite beings we’re limited in ways that an infinite being is not. He may have reasons we cannot begin to comprehend.

Philosopher William Alston gets at it this way: Suppose that some of the very best scientists in the world come up with a new theory about quantum physics. Suppose I, as a non-physicist, look at their theory and say, “Because I cannot figure it out, they must be wrong.” It’s possible they might be wrong, but I have no real basis for knowing.

Alston’s point is simply this: We are not in a position to assume that if an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil, then we as finite and fallible beings should be able to figure them out. And because we cannot assume this, any argument which does—such as the approach identified above—has not proved anything at all.

Naturally, some of us hear this and say, “I don’t care how the philosophical arguments go. I still feel in my heart of hearts that there are types of suffering that are so bad—so unjust—that it is impossible that a good and all-powerful God exists.” This leads to the next question.

Question 3: How is evil a problem for atheism?

As soon as we use the term “evil”, we are making a judgment; we’re saying that something is wrong, that injustice exists in the world. We feel that it is wrong for one person to murder another. We feel that it is unjust for a man like Hitler to murder six million people. And we feel this way because we believe human beings have dignity and, as a result, fundamental rights.

But on what basis do we feel this? Christians respond that we have been created in God’s image and given inherent worth by Him. But if this is not true—if we’re simply the random product of evolutionary forces—then where does such dignity come from? At this point even many secular thinkers acknowledge that it is difficult—if not impossible—to argue that we have any inherent dignity or worth if there is no God. In his 2000 article, “A Common Humanity,” atheist thinker Raimond Gaita states it this way: “The secular philosophical tradition speaks of inalienable rights, inalienable dignity, and of persons as ends in themselves. These are, I believe, ways of whistling in the dark, ways of trying to make secure to reason what reason cannot finally underwrite. Religious traditions speak of the sacredness of each human being, but I doubt that sanctity is a concept that has a secure home outside those traditions.”

If, for example, we’re watching a National Geographic special on lions and see one lion kill another, do we sense that it has committed a wrong? That it has in some way transgressed the dignity of the other? No, we think only that this is a matter of nature working its course. The first lion is under no moral obligation to let the second live.

But let us not miss the point: Without God, we are no different than the lion in terms of dignity; we are simply smarter animals on a different branch of the evolutionary tree. It is no more wrong or unjust for one person to kill another than it is for one lion to kill another, or for the robin to eat the worm. It might be unwise to murder, because there will be penalties to pay. It might go against community opinion in terms of what is right and wrong. It might be unfortunate for the person who is murdered. But in no way is it fundamentally wrong; no injustice has occurred. It is simply the working out of the survival of the fittest.

None of this, of course, is meant to disprove atheism. It is simply meant to illustrate a point: If our hearts tell us there is evil in the world—that certain acts are horribly wrong because they transgress our dignity and worth—then retreating to atheism doesn’t help us, since atheism—to be consistent—can’t provide a basis for human dignity in the first place. In this regard, evil is just as much a problem for the atheist as it is for the believer.

At this point someone might well respond: “All that’s been said so far is that evil does not disprove God and that evil is also a problem for atheism. So what? The question still remains: How could a good and all-powerful God allow so much evil and suffering in the world?”

Let me admit up front that we do not know what the answer is. But, as Tim Keller says in his book The Reason for God, we do know what the answer is not. And this leads to the fourth question.

Question 4: How might the fact that God himself experienced evil help us?

The foundation of the Christian story is this: In the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God has entered into human history and voluntarily experienced ultimate suffering and evil, all as an act of love for us. Christian writer Dorothy Sayers puts it this way:

The incarnation [of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth] means that for whatever reason God chose to let us fall into a condition of being limited, to suffer, to be subject to sorrows and death—he has nonetheless had the honesty and the courage to take his own medicine ... . He himself has gone through the whole of human experience—from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death ... . He was born in poverty and ... suffered infinite pain—all for us—and thought it well worth his while.

On the one hand, Sayers is pointing out that Jesus’ sufferings were many and real. In the Gospels you see Him rejected and slandered (Matthew 12:24), misunderstood by family and friends (John 11:16; 14:8), abandoned and betrayed by those who loved Him (Matthew 26:47-56; Luke 22:54-62), and suffering unimaginable physical violence (Matthew 27:27-35). Be it emotional or physical pain, God has not kept Himself immune from the suffering of this world.

But even more significantly, Sayers points out that He did all this as an act of love for us (John 10:11-18; 15:13). The Scriptures teach we’ve all contributed to this world’s suffering, be it from things we have done or failed to do. So how can God bring justice for these things—to make sure that someone pays for them—without destroying we who are guilty? Only by paying the penalty Himself. This is the unique message of Christianity: God’s love for us propels Him to pay our penalty on our behalf, and in so doing to experience evil in all its ferocious brutality.

So how can a good and all-powerful God allow suffering and evil? We simply don’t know. As Keller states, however, we know what the answer is not: It is not because He doesn’t love us; it’s not because He doesn’t care; it’s not because He doesn’t understand. It cannot be any of these, for his love-propelled voluntary suffering on our behalf tells us otherwise. Writer John Stott, in his book The Cross of Christ, explains:

I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross. The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross.” In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? ... [The God I worship is] that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. … There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we … stamp another mark, the cross, which symbolizes divine suffering.

And this leads to our last question. The fact that God voluntarily suffered evil might demonstrate His love, but is this where the story ends? Is this world simply like one long, sad movie, with a God who understands our suffering, who loves us in our suffering, and yet who does nothing about it in the end?

Question 5: Where does the story end?

In the second to last chapter of the Bible, we read this description of what the end will be like: “[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4). The very things that cause us suffering now—death, mourning, pain—will be gone. On what basis is this claim made? The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

We may think of it this way. Suffering and evil show up in all sorts of ways: poverty, war, abuse, relational pain, and ultimately death itself. These are all similar in one way—we label them as evil. But one of them is unique: Death is the only one that can never be avoided. People may be brought out of poverty; wars and abuses may end; relational pain can be healed; but death is unavoidable. It is the strongest expression of evil there is. No one has ever ultimately defeated it—except Jesus. The Scriptures teach that God not only suffered and died on our behalf, He also came to life again and defeated death itself. Which means this: If He can defeat the strongest of evils, then He can defeat all the rest.

Why does He not do so sooner? The Bible doesn’t say. But its certainty about the end of the story is not rooted in wishful thinking; it is rooted in a cosmic battle that has already taken place, a battle in which Jesus has defeated the worst of all evils. It is this Jesus—this victorious king—who not only comforts us in our present suffering, but who will one day come again and defeat suffering in all its forms. This—and nothing less—is the assurance that belongs to those who name Him as their king.

Jay Sklar is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 2001. He is still training for the marathon
_____________________________________________________________________________________

All that said...what do we say when we have to sit down with a family member or friend and help them push thru a tragedy anywhere near as horrible as seeing your brother behead your sister? Intellectual arguements will not cut it. Good theology doesn't ease the pain. I don't know the answer. I am hoping that someone out there reading this may have some insight on how to deal with circumstances like this in a way that is comforting to the affected parties without sounding trite or condescending. Any ideas?

Atonement

I wanted to do a quick follow-up post in response to the comments of Adam on my previous post. Maybe this will allow me to more particularly express my ever-evolving views.

First let me quote Charles Spurgeon...
“I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”

LOGIC

Adam pointed out that many non-Reformed believers will disagree with me that universal atonement and universalism are essentially the same. I can not understand how they could challenge my asumption. It logically follows that:

If, the effect of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement was to pay the penalty for sin

If, that that work is applied universally to all men, not a limited portion (universal atonement)

Then, the sin penalty for all men is erased.

Furthermore...

If, being cleansed of sin is the requirement for eternal life with God

If, all men are cleansed of sin

Then, all men are going to spend eternity with God (universalism)

These are logical formulations and God is a God whose very nature is revealed to us as logical. So, it is easy to see how universal atonement leads directly to universalism.

THE ARMINIAN RESPONSE

If the non-Reformed believer wants to side-step this kind of logic then he must argue that there is another layer between universal atonement and universalism that I have left out...free will.

Most Arminians will hold that Jesus death at Calvary was only providing possible salvation thru prevenient grace and that in order for that salvation to be effective, the individual believer must act of their own free volition in response.

The problem with this is that it make the cross nothing but a limp piece of wood with a symbollic martyr on it. If we must exercise faith in order for the work of Christ to be a saving work - then it is WE not HE that secure our salvation.

Kim Riddlebarger says that the Arminiam system leads to a place where we can "...no longer affirm that it is God who saves sinners...rather, it is sinners who save themselves, with God's help."

Or J.I. Packer, "We speak of [Christ's] redeeming work as if he had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God's love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence at the door of our hearts' for us to let them in."

WHO GETS THE GLORY?

This is a man-centered view of soteriology and it is not taught in Scripture. Clearly the Word teaches that it is God who saves us...see John 15:16

"You did not choose me, but I chose you..." these are the words of Christ. In this passage he is speaking to his disciples in historical context and to all of us in theological application. It can not be clearer - God saves us, we do not save ourselves in any form or fashion. To allow that we have even a small part on which our salvation depends is to diminish the glory of our sovereign Lord.

FOUR OR FIVE POINTS...

As a last note - I do not hold to Amyraldian atonement or "four-point Calvinsim." This is the idea that in order to reconcile certain passages of Scripture (like 2 Peter 3:9) we must believe that God had two things going on at the cross. First, God benevolently wanted all to be saved and he ordained the death of Christ to provide this salvation as an offer for all alike. However, as he saw that none would turn towards him of their own will (due to total depravity) he effected to sovereignly save the elect and thus make Christ's death effective only for them.

I understand this view. I think it is a far-reaching way to explain these troublesome passages, but I think that it is good-natured. However, I see these verses best explained when the words and paragraphs are viewed in context. Everytime we read "the world" or "all" it does not mean "every single human being ever made." When they are examined on a case by case basis, the proof texts for Amyraldianism do not hold up. Take the 2 Peter example.

Wonderful Bible teacher and preacher, John Piper, states that understanding 2 Peter 3:9 is all about understanding why God delays the second coming of Christ. It is not that God is slow in his promise, rather he is patient towards mankind. He is waiting for his redemptive plan to play out and for all of his sheep (the certain number of Gentiles in Romans 11:25) to come into the fold. This delay is so that all the sheep (those he chose, who know him) may come to repentance and that none would perish. Once we see the passage in context, it is very difficult to read it as if it was applicable to all men across all time. In fact, we see how it easily supports the limited atonement view.

CONCLUSION

Well, I have written far too much for my exhausted mind tonight. I hope this has expounded on what I believe and what I think Scripture tells us about who Christ died for. I am not looking to create prideful arguments with Christian brothers. I sincerely hold that the difference between a non-Reformed and a Reformed theology is extremely influential on how one sees the nature of God and the work of the cross. The viewpoint that someone holds about this inevitably affects how they see every aspect of their Christian walk. Once again, I want to stress that my view does not lead to a debunking of the Great Commission or the end of evangelism and missions (as some suggest). In fact, as John Calvin and Augustine have said:

"Because we
know not who belongs to the number of the predestinated, or does
not belong, our desire ought to be that all may be saved; and hence
every person we meet, we will desire to be with us a partaker of
peace."

Amen

Who did Jesus die for?

John 17:6-11 (The high priestly prayer of Jesus)
"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

------------------------------------------------------------

On page 13 of the most recent edition of Christianity Today, there is a short blurb detailing recent commotion at SouthWestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas. Apparently the school is potentially facing some hard economic times (aren't we all) and the result may be some professor lay-offs. Sources have reported that the SWBTS president, Paige Patterson, is considering that his first targets (if layoffs occur) should be the Calvinist professors on staff. It is claimed that he even made comments to this affect at a staff meeting with the faculty.

To address these allegations, President Patterson gave a recent interview and explained that he was hoping that there would be no economic difficulties forcing him to fire anyone. He then stated that he would never hide behind a screen of financial hardship if he felt that a professor should be fired because of a specific belief. Finally he mused, "I will say that SouthWestern will not build a school in the future around anyone who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say 'Christ died for your sins.'"

Of course, this statement amounts to a rejection of the theological doctrine of Limited Atonement (hereafter LA). LA is a prime tenet of Reformed belief. It is the idea that Christ's atonement for sin on the cross is effective only for those chosen by God for salvation before the world began. While his death was hypothetically sufficient for all men, it was efficacious for only the elect.

The problem with rejecting LA, as President Patterson seems to have done, is that you identify yourself as an universalist. LA is not only a belief for the Calvinist, it is a doctrine that all orthodox Christians must hold to, unless they think everyone is going to heaven. If Christ died for the sins of everyone in the world, then no one can go to hell, because no one is guilty before God. The penal subtitutionary death of Jesus provides a pleasing offering for sin to God that erases the debt owed God to all whom it applies. For example, if you were in massive credit card debt, and you were headed to debtors prison because of this debt, when I came along and freely paid your debt - you are free of that debt and prison is no longer in your future. You could dislike me, wish I had not done that for you, or even try to go on to prison anyway because you are some kind of wacko. Regardless, your debt is cleared, the prison will not take you in, and you are free-like it or not.

The real debate...

John 15:16 (Jesus speaking to his disciples)
"You did not chose me, but I chose you..."

Acts 13:48 (Early church conversions)
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

If Jesus paid the debt of every person then they are all free to go and hell is not in their future. We know that is not the case (Matthew 7:13-14). Therefore, if Jesus did not atone for all people's sin - who did he die for? The answer is the elect. (2 Timothy 2:10) The question is not really who gets the benefits of the cross, we should all agree it is the elect alone. Rather, the question is how do the elect become the elect?

It is this point at which the Reformed and non-Reformed disagree. The Reformed view is that God sovereignly chose a portion of mankind to be saved, not due to anything in them but out of his love, mercy, and grace alone. These chosen people are the elect. They are then brought to faith and regeneration as a necessary effect of their being called by God for his glory. (They chose God, because God chose them) The non-Reformed position argues that the elect are known as the elect because God chose them before time based upon his trans-temporal foreknowledge that they would choose him when their moment of decision came. (God chose them because they would chose God)

It appears that President Patterson may be confused. I do not think he would argue for universalism that sends everyone to heaven, yet he is clearly rejecting the idea of LA. Maybe he simply disagrees with Reformed soteriology and he is trying to paint the Calvinist view as unloving since we can't tell everyone (in their eyes) that Jesus died for THEIR sins. I hope that is not the case. I believe that the Reformed/ non-Reformed debate is an in-house discussion on the "how" not the "what' of salvation and that we should be able to co-exist as brothers who disagree on what election is while confirming that we all hold to the teaching of LA and not universalism.

How to say it then...

How then, as a parting thought, can a Reformed believer talk about Christ's atonement to the unregenerate. I would simply suggest changing the statement from "Christ died for your sins" to "Christ died for sin." It is subtle and doesn't really destroy the gospel message, yet it retains good theology and avoids any mistaken thinking. Following the statement about atonement for sin (writ large, not individual) an explanation of how the person can benefit from Christ's work on the cross and how his blood can be applied to their particular sins thru trust and faith would clear up the whole issue.

This is not an issue of "those mean-spirited, arrogant, and cliquish Calvinists." Rather it is an important theological question about who gets the justification of God by way of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement on that hill in Jerusalem. If Jesus did die for all men's sin (as President Patterson suggested) then universalism is true and we are all going to heaven. Since Scripture does not teach that doctrine, I must hold to the Word. Clearly it is the elect of God and the elect alone who will be gathered into heaven. (Mark 13:26-27)

These facts do not mean that we should ignore a lost world or walk around giving detailed theological explanations to unbelievers, rather it is by simple presentations of the gospel of grace and the love of God, demonstrated on the cross, that we can tell the world about the Savior who died for sin and who can save them from their sin IF they trust him as Lord.

The Decline of Evangelicalism

I was recently listening to a podcast from Stand to Reason (www.str.org). I love Greg Koukl and his winsome method of delivering the truths of Christianity. On the episode in question, he was commenting about a recent article that argues a thesis about the decline of evangelicalism in American. The writer apparently believes that by 2020, there will half as many professing evangelicals in our country as there are today. The statistic given was 35% of America currently describes themselves as "evangelical."

I have not read the article that is being quoted and I just briefly listened to Greg's thoughts on it. However, I understood enough of the main point on this issue to formulate some thoughts myself. Ultimately, I agree with the prediction that evangelical Christianity will soon be on a major downward slope, furthermore I believe that this decline will bring strengthened faith to the faithful and splendid glory to our God.

Why the drop?

I think that evangelicalism will see faster and deeper decline ove the next 20 years for several reasons:

1) There is a cultural two-pronged attack on the faith today from postmodern agnostics who deny the existence or knowledge of truth on one side and the revived army of modern materialists who espouse militant athieism on the other side.

2) The new administration has already proven itself to be hostile to the key social beliefs that evangelicals hold (pro-life, traditional marriage, etc...) Additionally, the new president is passing new guidelines for faith-based inititaives that bar religious non-profits from being selective in hiring to ensure that they get employees who agree with their doctrinal beliefs. Also, there is a bill on the table that would take away the right of medical personnel to refuse to perform procedures that they have a moral aversion to.

3) Under the leadership of Oprah and Hollywood, the new religion that is spreading across America is politically correct hyper-pluralism and tolerance that spills over into universalism. These days, it is bigoted to hold that any one religion may contain that true path to eternity.

4) Since the freedom revolution of the 60s and 70s we have been under an ever-increasing barrage of moral relativism. Media has picked up the banner now and we are exposed to the idea that there is no transcendent objective moral right and wrong every day. There is only society and what it agrees on, and that changes between cultures - so they say.

5) There is a precedent before us in this downhill slide. It can be seen within the mainline denominations - Episcopals, Lutherans, Presbyterian (USA), and Methodists have already begun to abandon the gospel and embrace the wickedness of the world.

6) Largely, the late 20th century phenomenon of emotive, charismatic Christianity has been the driving force behind tossing out the classical doctrines and intellectual theological understandings of our faith. Without those foundations, we will be tossed about and demolished by a raging sea of anti-Christian attackers. On a similiar note, we have not done a good job of educating our children on the faith - since we don't know it ourselves.

All of these previous issues are cumulative and they are creating an enviorment that is breeding a destructive evangelical-eating bacteria.

How is this good?

Upon an initial reading of the above, you may be distressed. I would say - "don't be." For too long the culture of America has identified itself as Christian while disregarding, on the whole, any real effort at trusting Christ. It has been a nation of nominal belief for some time now. The decline of those who identify with evangelicalism over the next 20 years will simply separate the sheep and the goats.

As classical Christianity is marginalized, made fun of, and portrayed as the anthesis of love/ peace...persecution and suffering will increase for those who hold firm to our Savior and his gospel message. However, the Bible is clear that these things (persecution and suffering) are exactally what we should expect to endure AND the very things that will gather for us eternal rewards.

James 1:12
Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. (ESV)

Also see:
Mark 4:17
2 Cor 2:10
2 Thes 1:4
Rom 5:3
Rom 8:18
2 Cor 1:5
2 Cor 1:6
Phil 3:10
Col 1:24
2 Tim 1:8
2 Tim 2:3
2 Tim 2:9
2 Tim 4:5

At the end of the day we will get a closer relationship with Jesus, future treasures, and unbreakable joyous resolve as we stand firm under the coming persecutions. God will therefore get great glory as his name is continuely exalted in the midst of hardship. Maybe what American Chrisitianity needs most right now is the forthcoming decline of those who identify with evangelicalism and the increase in religious persecution/ It might help us get back to our roots - like the early church under Rome.

Thankfully at the end of the day, we can be assured that God is working all things (even pain and discomfort) for the ultimate, eternal good of those whom he has chosen and whom he so merciful loves. Romans 8:28

Whats in a name?

(This is a repost from my family blog back in Nov. 2008)

I heard a radio program on the way home yesterday and the topic was the names of God. The host was talking about the different names of God and what each meant. These would include:

Elohim: The plural form of EL, meaning “strong one.” It is used of false gods, but when used of the true God, it is a plural of majesty and intimates the trinity. It is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to His sovereignty (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7).

Compounds of El:

El Shaddai: “God Almighty.” The derivation is uncertain. Some think it stresses God’s loving supply and comfort; others His power as the Almighty one standing on a mountain and who corrects and chastens (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2).

El Elyon: “The Most High God.” Stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25).

El Olam: “The Everlasting God.” Emphasizes God’s unchangeableness and is connected with His inexhaustibleness (Gen. 16:13).

Adonai: Like Elohim, this too is a plural of majesty. The singular form means “master, owner.” Stresses man’s relationship to God as his master, authority, and provider (Gen. 18:2; 40:1; 1 Sam. 1:15; Ex. 21:1-6; Josh. 5:14).

Theos: Greek word translated “God.” Primary name for God used in the New Testament. Its use teaches: (1) He is the only true God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30); (2) He is unique (1 Tim. 1:17; John 17:3; Rev. 15:4; 16:27); (3) He is transcendent (Acts 17:24; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 10:6); (4) He is the Savior (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10). This name is used of Christ as God in John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1.

Kurios: Greek word translated “Lord.” Stresses authority and supremacy. While it can mean sir (John 4:11), owner (Luke 19:33), master (Col. 3:22), or even refer to idols (1 Cor. 8:5) or husbands (1 Pet. 3:6), it is used mostly as the equivalent of Yahweh of the Old Testament. It too is used of Jesus Christ meaning (1) Rabbi or Sir (Matt. 8:6); (2) God or Deity (John 20:28; Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11).

Despotes: Greek word translated “Master.” Carries the idea of ownership while kurios stressed supreme authority (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4).

Father: A distinctive New Testament revelation is that through faith in Christ, God becomes our personal Father. Father is used of God in the Old Testament only 15 times while it is used of God 245 times in the New Testament. As a name of God, it stresses God’s loving care, provision, discipline, and the way we are to address God in prayer (Matt. 7:11; Jam. 1:17; Heb. 12:5-11; John 15:16; 16:23; Eph. 2:18; 3:15; 1 Thess. 3:11).

Yahweh (YHWH): Comes from a verb which means “to exist, be.” This, plus its usage, shows that this name stresses God as the independent and self-existent God of revelation and redemption (Gen. 4:3; Ex. 6:3 (cf. 3:14); 3:12). - also translated Jehovah

Compounds of Yahweh: Strictly speaking, these compounds are designations or titles which reveal additional facts about God’s character.

Yahweh Jireh (Yireh): “The Lord will provide.” Stresses God’s provision for His people (Gen. 22:14).

Yahweh Nissi: “The Lord is my Banner.” Stresses that God is our rallying point and our means of victory; the one who fights for His people (Ex. 17:15).

Yahweh Shalom: “The Lord is Peace.” Points to the Lord as the means of our peace and rest (Jud. 6:24).

Yahweh Sabbaoth: “The Lord of Hosts.” A military figure portraying the Lord as the commander of the armies of heaven (1 Sam. 1:3; 17:45).

Yahweh Maccaddeshcem: “The Lord your Sanctifier.” Portrays the Lord as our means of sanctification or as the one who sets believers apart for His purposes (Ex. 31:13).

Yahweh Ro’i: “The Lord my Shepherd.” Portrays the Lord as the Shepherd who cares for His people as a shepherd cares for the sheep of his pasture (Ps. 23:1).

Yahweh Tsidkenu: “The Lord our Righteousness.” Portrays the Lord as the means of our righteousness (Jer. 23:6).

Yahweh Shammah: “The Lord is there.” Portrays the Lord’s personal presence in the millennial kingdom (Ezek. 48:35).

Yahweh Elohim Israel: “The Lord, the God of Israel.” Identifies Yahweh as the God of Israel in contrast to the false gods of the nations (Jud. 5:3.; Isa. 17:6)

...and it was the last one that the radio stressed as the most important. It was this name which best shows God's character as the sovereign ruler of all things and the object of all glory. It is what he calls himself when Moses asks his name (Exodus 3) and the title that Christ used to claim divinity (John 8).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of this got me thinking about how cavalier we are as a society about names and definitions of those names. Notice that each of the names of God had a specific meaning and I believe that there is a mysterious power in His names and in names in general. I am not talking about some goofy new age spiritualism or even word of faith style theology, however there is something about names that I believe we don't take enough time to think about and which we should take more seriously.

This line of thought reminded me of my job in high school over the 1995 winter break. I worked at a kiosk in Southlake Mall that sold framed parchments which detailed the meaning of names. It was called "Whats in a Name" and it was a good job for a few months. Thinking back to that time, I want to revisit what my name and my wife's name means as well as what our childrens's names mean and why we chose them.

Jason - (Greek) Healer
Allen - (Gaelic) Rock

Tiffany - (Greek) Manifestation of God
Anne - (Hebrew) Grace

Everett - (Germanic) Strong as a wild boar
Allen - (Gaelic) Rock

Ean - (Hebrew/ Gaelic) God is forgiving
Agustin - (Latin) Venerated

There are the meanings of our family names. We tried to choose the boys names for their uniqueness more than for their meaning I think, but being strong as wild boars or a reminder of God's forgivness is not at all a bad thing!. And I must add here that my wife was gracious enough (hence her middle name) to allow me to pick Ean's middle name in honor of the great church father, St. Augustine of Hippo. While on the topic of my wife and names...it is fitting that Tiffany's name, when put together, means "a manifestation of God's grace," because in many ways she is just that for me!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, we can't forget the family last name: Glover...see the coat of arms at the top of the post!

Origins: Scottish

Spelling variations of this family name include: Glovere

First found in Perthshire where they held a family seat from very ancient times.

Some of the first American settlers of this family name or some of its variants were: Charles Glover who settled in Boston after sailing the Atlantic on the ship, "Lion." He purchased additional lands in Salem in 1632. Henry Glover landed in New England in 1634 and by the mid-1700's, the Glovers occupied territory in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Coat of Arms: An ermine chevron between three silver crescents on a black shield.

Motto: Nec Timeo Nec Sperno (I neither fear nor despise)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all I have enjoyed learning more about the names of God and my own family's names. Maybe this will prompt you to do some fun research for yourself!

Jason

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special thanks to the late J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. and bible.org for research material. Also to babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com for assistance.

Faith and Love

These two words are so often used as nouns. I guess that is legit - but I worry that it sometimes leads to stagnation.

Faith is not only something that you get at one point in your life as a gift from Jesus...which too often proceeds to rust and fade away. Faith is in fact, an action that you undertake everyday with the help of the Holy Spirit to persevere under the trials of a fallen world. We must live by faith every day! Romans 1:17

In a likewise manner, love is so often characterized as an emotive feeling..."being in love" and such. I think there is true validity in looking at love as a state of ones emotions. However, it might be more beneficial to see love as an ongoing commitment even when that place of happy feelings is elusive. Love is afterall, the greatest verb. 1 Corinthians 13:13

New Calvinism???

TIME magazine has an article out which argues that "new calvinism" is the third most influential idea changing the world today.

CLICK HERE to read the article.

Someone should tell TIME that Calvinism has been around awhile. And not just since the Reformation. Reformed theology may have been formalized on a grand scale by Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc....but long before these men you can see Reformed readings of Scripture in Augustine of Hippo. I would even say that "calvinistic" ideas were exactly what St. Paul was recording in his epistles.

This recent wave of theology from Piper, Driscoll, and Mohler may be a new resurrgence of Reformed thought within modern evangelism, but it is certainly not "new calvinism."

Nevertheless, it is pretty cool to see a secular periodical recognize the truth of God and the impact it is having on our world.

UPDATE - Rather than argue for dropping the term "new" in new calvinism, Pastor Mark has defined a few things that make it new...

1-Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.

2-Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.

3-Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

4-Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

Original article found here HERE.

MORE UPDATE - The Heidelblog disagrees with Driscoll and says that he isn't even Reformed.

See the article HERE.

I think they argue for that based on his baptismal stance. It reads kinda like Calvinist snobbery to me. Maybe they made Driscoll's point (4) for him.

In my opinion, Mark Driscoll is a man of God. He preaches Jesus, the sovereignty of our Lord, and an orthodox Chrsitianity to the most unchurched city in America with astounding results.

A Mocker of Men

"Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" – Martin Luther



As with most things I believe that God's way lies in the middle ground. Sex, Violence, Alcohol...all of these can be abused for evil and immoral purposes or they can be properly and appropriately managed in the way that God commands through his Word. Much of my following blog is taken from the good people at Mars Hill Church (http://www.marshillchurch.org/). I think they have a real feel for how we should be as Christians in their “closed-hand/open-hand” approach. They believe that the "closed hand" hangs onto the non-negotiable tenants of Christian orthodoxy: sin is the problem, Jesus is the answer, the Bible is true, and Hell is hot. The open hand, however, allows room for differences when it comes to secondary matters; freedom for conscience and wisdom to guide where the Bible is silent. The open hand fosters unity among the diversity of expressions found in the Christian community: Democrats and Republicans, soccer moms and indie rockers, carnivores and vegans, trendy bohemians and Microsoft nerds. And we begin:

History

Historically, God’s people have greatly enjoyed alcohol. In the European world one of the most Christian drinks was beer. Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and renowned brewer. After Charlemagne’s reign the church because Europe’s exclusive brewer. When a young woman was to marry her church made special bridal ale for her, from which we derive our word bridal. Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary package included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by he and his guests. Martin Luther explained the entire reformation as “…while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.” Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer. When the Puritan’s landed on Plymouth Rock the first permanent building they erected was the brewery.

Modernity

As feminism grew in America during the turn of the 20th century the women’s suffrage and prohibition movements were the practical results of a feminine piety that came to also dominate the church as more women became pastors and the church became more feminine. Some denominations began to condemn alcohol as sinful and the Methodist pastor Dr. Thomas Welch created the very “Christian” Welch’s grape juice to replace communion wine in 1869. The marriage of Christianity and feminism helped to create a dry nation that put out of business all but the largest brewers who were able to survive on near beer and root beer which explains why today American beer is largely mass produced, watered down, light on calories, and feminine in comparison to rich and dark European beers. The resurgence of micro-brews is helping to overcome the great loss and resurrect the art of brewing.

New wine and Mixed wine

Lastly, some Christians foolishly argue that such terms as new wine and mixed wine in the Bible speak of non-alcoholic wine. But, new wine can still intoxicate according to Scripture (Isaiah 24:7; Hosea 4:11; Joel 1:5), and mixed wine refers to special wines where various wines are mixed together and/or mixed with spices and does not refer to wine cut with water (Psalm 75:8; Song of Songs 8:2). God refers to pouring out the wine of His mixed wine on His enemies which does not mean He will dilute justice (Psalm 75:8). The only time such a practice is mentioned in the Bible is in regards to merchants who cut wine with to rob customers (Isaiah 1:22). The Bible speaks of grape juice (Numbers 6:3) and if God meant to speak of non-alcoholic wine he would have used that word to avoid confusion.

Truth # 1: All Bible believing Christians agree that drunkenness is a sin.

The Bible is abundantly clear that drunkenness is a sin (Deuteronomy 21:20; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Matthew 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3).

The matter is so serious that no priest was to drink alcohol while performing their duties (Leviticus 10:9; Ezekial 44:21) though they could consume while not working (Numbers 18:12, 27, 30), no king was to drink while judging law (Proverbs 31:4-5), an elder/pastor cannot be a drunkard (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7), and that no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21).

Sins associated with drunkenness include incest (Genesis 19:32-35), violence (Proverbs 4:17); adultery (Revelation 17:2); mockery and brawling (Proverbs 20:1); poverty (Proverbs 21:17); late night and early morning drinking (Isaiah 5:11-12); hallucinations (Isaiah 28:7); legendary antics (Isaiah 5:22); murder (2 Samuel 11:13), gluttony and poverty (Proverbs 23:20-21); vomiting (Jeremiah 25:27, 48:26; Isaiah 19:14); staggering (Jeremiah 25:27; Psalm 107:27; Job 12:25); madness (Jeremiah 51:7), loudness combined with laughter and then prolonged sleep (Jeremiah 51:39; nakedness (Habbakuk 2:15; Lamentations 4:21); sloth (Joel 1:5); escapism (Hosea 4:11); depression (Luke 21:34); and staying up all night (1 Thessalonians 5:7).

Falsehood # 1: Prohibitionists wrongly teach that all drinking is a sin and that alcohol itself is an evil.

Psalm 104:14-15 "He God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man . . ."

John 2:1-11 is clear that Jesus first miracle was performing over 100 gallons of wine at a wedding party

Falsehood # 2: Abstentionists wrongly teach that drinking is not sinful but that all Christians should avoid drinking out of love for others and a desire to not cause anyone to stumble.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 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 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

Truth # 2: Moderationists rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that Christian conscience must guide each person.

Wine is spoken of as both good and bad in the same verses (1 Samuel 1:14, 24; 25:18, 37; Joel 1:5,10).

Apart from good feasting alcohol in Scripture is rightly used for communion (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18), medicinal purposes (Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23), and Old Testament worship (Numbers 28:14).Proverbs 3:9-10

"Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine."

Ecclesiastes 9:7 "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart."

Psalm 104:14-15 "He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice."

1 Timothy 5:23 "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."

Conclusion

It seems that the biblical standard is that everyone act according to their Spirit-guided conscience in recognition of the Holy Scripture when it comes to alcohol consumption.

Because of past sin, some who have had problems with alcohol may need to abstain for fear of stumbling into old sinful habits. For those who enjoy alcohol with biblical moderation, we recommend using discernment when providing hospitality for others who may have conscience or addiction issues.

Best of all, we look forward to the day when our Lord and Savior will prepare for us a redeemed feast with wine:

"On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation." - Isaiah 25:6-9

The error in Ehrman

Today I drove to Knoxville and back for work. That left me much time for listening to the radio. I tuned into NPR during the afternoon to catch an interesting episode of Fresh Air. - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895

The guest was liberal bible scholar and apostate of the faith, Bart Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman is a professor of religion at UNC (Chapel Hill). He has a new book coming out called "Jesus Interupted" which tries to claim that there are many important contradictions within the four gospels that cannot be resolved and that must alter our view of faith and the historical Jesus.

The first argument that Dr. Ehrman provides to back-up his claim on the show is the "contradiction" which occurs between the dying words of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Ehrman claims that in Matthew, Jesus is a man of despair who only says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" while he is on the cross. Then he tells us that in Luke we read that Jesus made several statements on the cross to include telling the thief that he would be in Paradise that day and crying "Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit." Ehrman concludes that Luke shows Jesus as fully realizing his role and his coming destination with the Father in heaven.

Here is the wierd thing. Dr. Ehrman, a noted academic, calls these two accounts a contradiction. They are NOT are contradiction. Any freshman in a Logic/ Critical Thinking class could tell you that a contradiction occurs when two sources claim exclusive, opposing viewpoints. The classic contradiction would be:
a is b
a is not b

In that case, you have a problem. The proposition (a) cannot both be (b) and not be (b). What we see in the two gospels is not even close to a classic contradiction. To be a contradiction the text would have to read "Jesus said My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" in Matthew and THEN read " Jesus did not say My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" in Luke.

What we do have in front of us as we read Matthew and Luke regarding the death of Jesus is two authors expressing complimentary and complete views about what occurred on that hilltop.

Remember that Jesus was up there 3 hours at least. Is it not likely that he could have went thru a range of emotions since he was fully human as well as fully divine (to include abandonment as he became sin for our sakes)? - see 1 Corinthians 5:21

Thru the program Dr. Ehrman tries to cite other examples of "contradictions" and all of them fall flat with some basic research and common sense. I don't think I need to lay them out here since I already showed his first example to the fallacious.

Ehrman is a sad case. He once had a brilliant mind that he used to further the kingdom. Now he has resorted to intellectual dishonesty to fool the masses. He is a wolf outside the flock and we all need to be aware of him and those like him lest we be led astray.