An Odd Couple: Keller and Kreeft

The "Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions" is a book authored by Boston College professor Peter Kreeft (Krayfth) and co-authored by R. Tacelli.

As I looked at the webpage for Tim Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian Church today, I saw this book under the recommended resources tab for Apologetics.

This book being recommended by Keller surprised me. I have this book at home, I bought it shortly after my regeneration 5 years ago (a time when I was deeply into evidentiary apologetics). Much of the book is useful, unfortunately there is a large theological problem expounded upon in the book which is very serious.

The issue which I believe is heterodox and which is advocated in "HofCA" is Christian Inclusivism. Inclusivism is the theory that why Christ is the only way to salvation, one does not need to know of him to be saved. This translates into the idea that salvation is possible for those of different religions, if they are sincere and good devotees that seek truth (as they have access to it) and strive to live a moral life, they can make it into eternal life. This indirect and unknowing way to heaven is said to still hinge on what Jesus did, even if the one saved never hears the gospel, thus the Christian moniker.

I guess I should not be terribly surprised by the fact that Kreeft holds this view. He is a Roman Catholic and this view was offically dictated at Vatican II. He does go into much further detail on this in his book "Ecumenical Jihad," which describes his belief that he will enter heaven one day to be greeted by people like Buddha, Mohammed, and Confucius. See this LINK for a review of that book. Its a sharp and thought-provoking review, be warned.

The weird thing for me is that Tim Keller is endorsing a book with Inclusivistic claims. As a PCA pastor, I know that Keller is a conservative, Reformed, exclusivist at heart. Whay he would recommend a Kreeft book is beyond me.

Of course, lots of pastors quote another inclusivists on a regular basis and they may not even know it. C.S. Lewis was also a proponent in the idea that we can see Jesus as the underlying means for salvation, if not the understood method. Another famous inclusivist is evangelist Billy Graham. See THIS interview with R. Schuller for his take on the subject.

I can't stand behind inclusivism because the Bible does not teach it. I consider inclusivism a severe misinterpretation of John 14:6 (Jesus says he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life) in light of the rest of the redemptive narrative. If hearing the gospel is unnecessary for salvation, why does Jesus command the Great Commission? Why did so many early saints die for the sake of gospel proclamation? Whats the point of making such a big deal about Jesus if people don't need to know about him to be saved?

I feel that inclusivism is a unbiblical belief that was created to justify the Amrinian view of salvation. It stems from questions like that of the tribesman in the jungle.

"What about the guy who lives in the rainforest and who never hears about Jesus - but, who worships his god(s) sincerely and who tries to live a good life?"

The traditional reformed (that is biblical) answer is that persons who do not hear and trust in the gospel message of Christ's death and resurrection as payment for their sin have not been elected into God's family. They justly perish as a result of their own rebellion, since God is obligated to save none and his grace is his to grant thru Christ alone. See the WCF 8.8 This is why the role of missions and evangelism is so important, regeneration and new birth do not take place except thru faith in the gospel. Without knowledge of Jesus it is impossible to be saved.

Since the libertarian free-will advocates could not abide by the biblical doctrines of sovereign grace and election, they interjected themselves into the equation and made salvation a choice given to us by God that we make effectual by our own decision. This presented a problem for their "tribesmen in the jungle" scenario. If salvation is no longer the sole choice of God, but rather the ultimate decision of man - then, a God who never gives tribesmen the choice of Jesus or not Jesus is unfairly damning that individual (so they would say). Therefore, they skirt the issue by saying that all men have a choice - some have knowledge of Jesus, others only have the knowledge provided to them by general revelation - in either case they can pick the right choice and be saved.

Unfortunately, this last Arminian inclusivistic idea is nowhere in the Scriptures. Putting national Israel aside for a moment (thats a different topic), no one in the NT appears to have been saved without knowing the gospel message of Christ. In fact the Word appears to be pretty clear in the opposite direction. That means that we have no good reason to believe that inclusivism is true. It may seem "nicer" to the fallen side of our nature, but its simply not truth.

At the end of the day I know that we will all eventually reference inclusivists in our messages, blogs, and the like - I just implore us to be careful about which people we quote, the quotes we use, and how deeply we endorse those individuals.

10,000 Doors

I listen to NPR on the way to/ from work each day.  Thats my only news source.  I don't spend any other time in my life hunkered down in front of TV or internet news.  I wasted years of my life, just after 9/11, glued to the 24 hours news networks...never again.

Today I was driving home and I heard a commercial on NPR for something called "10,000 Doors."  Apparently this is a new website/ movement by the United Methodist Church to "rethink church."  You can see their site HERE.

What bothered me about this radio commercial was that the tagline went like this...

"What if church was a place where God believed in you?"

I began laughing.  I know that such massive anthropocentrism isn't really funny - but, I could not help busting a gut.  I mean, how ridiculous is this joke of a thing called American Christianity.  We have so deceived ourselves in thinking that we can use religious vocabulary, regardless of theology, and call ourselves believers.

I guess that I should expect this from ardent Wesleyans.  It is a complete system that focuses on the free will of man to choose his own salvation, the logical outcome of which is simply being realized now - God is here to be our helper, we're the real center-point in the show.

Expect to see more of this in the future.  Christianity is being twisted into a social action network with passing reference to God, and sometimes Jesus.  Its a form of works-salvation that rarely mentions sin, the cross, grace, or judgement - those things that Jesus said and did so clearly.

I think that it is primarily a product of a low view of Scripture.  Folks have largely decided to read the Bible, the few who actually read it, as a nice story with lots of example of how we can be better people despite all that fairy tale stuff.  Once a person or a denomination begins to let their view of Scripture slide, they will soon deny all the essential doctrines of the faith and anthropocentric, feel-good, humanitarian assistance is all that they will have to stand for.

I'm probably ramblin' now - I am going to bed now.

Why I am not a Young-Earth Creationist

Here are 3 brief reasons that I am not a YEC...

1) It does not mesh with modern science (cosmology, astronomy, geology, etc...) Latest estimations put the planet at almost 14 billion years old. So that leaves one of three options on the table:

a) Science is wrong about all its current data and the earth is not that old, its actually 6000-10,000 years old. (The YEC view)
b) The planet was made to look old despite its young age when God made it. (This makes God a deceiver, thats unbiblical)
c) Both YEC and the deception views are wrong and the planet is very old just as science says it is.  (What seems the only answer in face of the natural and special revelation we have)

2) The creation account in Genesis does not force itself to be read uber-literally. The 6 days of creation are probably not literal days, a very sound way to translate the Hebrew word used (yom) refers to a long period of time. In any case, the account is certainly vague enough to be legitimately viewed as something besides 6 literal days. Furthermore, despite the opinions of some, a non-uber-literal reading of these passages does not seem to have any logical bearing on wether or not one accepts that God did the creating. More over, it doesn't affect an understanding of who Christ was, why he died, and that he rose again.

3) I believe that placing a huge emphasis on the age of the earth as young, loudly proclaiming that belief, and holding fast to it in the midst of overwhelming evidence...that does more to hinder the gospel than to help spread it. Too often, the world sees Young-Earthers as crackpots and superstitious wierdos who button their polos all the way up and think that humans rode on saddles attached to vegetarian dinosaurs. Since the age of the earth is a non-essential doctrine, I argue that we should take the worlds view on this into account and leave it alone.

The best thing we can do is to love people, serve their needs, and tell them the good news of a Saviour that died for them. If we can see unbelievers moving to accept the essentials of the faith, then we can have in-house discussions on the secondary and tertiary issues. To place emphasis on those non-essentials, like YEC, is to take the focus off Jesus and to actually put up walls between an unbeliever and Christ that impede that person from finding true joy.

Most often, I find that ardent YEC are more interested in being correct than in proclaiming the gospel. I would urge them to drop their hard-line stance, even if they turn out to be right, for the sake of the central message of our faith.

Reformation Day

While most people know October 31st as Halloween, it is actually the date of another holiday as well.

On a blustery day in Germany 492 years ago, a young man named Martin Luther nailed his famous "95 Theses" to the church door at Wittenberg. As we all know, this protest aganist unbiblical Catholic doctrines was the major incident that is considered to have begun the Reformation.

The break from Rome took many turns through the years, and through several of those twists the Presbyterian Church of America was born. This Reformation day I am going to be celebrating that I belong to a Christocentric, Gospel-driven, Bible-exalting denomination.

Beyond that, I am going to celebrate the battle cries of the Reformation:

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

Thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit and the courage of a German monk, this October 31st is more than a day of fall festivaties or a ghostly night of costumes and candy. Above all, this 31st is a time for us to give thanks to God that he has provided his Son, Jesus, with a bride; and that we, the bride, are constantly being prepared (through events like the "95 Theses") to be ready for our glorious wedding banquet in the future!

Happy Reformation Day!

An Idolatry of Theology

As humans we are prone to make idols and subsequently, to worship those things above the Lord. This can happen even in the midst of miracles, as it did with the Hebrews who came out of Egypt when they made the golden calf. That means it certainly still happens today.

Idolatry is a serious offense to a sovereign God, notice the 10 Commandments. Often, we are quick to point out the idols worshipped by our culture - money, sex, TV, etc...Sometimes we will even admit to struggling with those idols in our own lives. What we hardly ever do is talk about the idols that sneak up on us because we tend to see them as inherently good things.

Family is a great example of this category. Many people have made an idol of thier family, putting it before God in their hearts. They do this because the have difficulty seeing typically good things as potential idols. Family is a good thing. God blesses marriage and childrearing. Unfortunately, we are so depraved that we find a way to twist the goodness of family into an idol before our God.

This general idea was hammered home for me in our weekly mens discipleship group on Tuesday. The discussion included the thought that we must be vigilant lest we make an idol of good men like Piper, Keller, or Driscoll. We can learn much from them about Jesus, but they are not Jesus.

Less obvious, if equally as dangerous is our potential idolatry of reformed theology/ Calvinism. I am fully committed to RT because I believe that it is the system that best captures the theology of the Bible. I am a strong believer that understanding TULIP is the best way to dig deep into God's truth and to grasp the beauty of God's grace. That said, I know that it is very easy for me to fall into a trap of idolizing RT.

I can spend hours on the subject, living inside my head and my thoughts, oblivious to the outside world. By being so enamoured by the "headiness" of RT, I think I often lose out on my complete surrender and worship of God. I see Scripture as telling us that correct theology is vital, else faith would be in vain, AND that we are to express that theological conviction is simplicity and love.

When my fascination with the doctrines of RT becomes such a preoccupation that it leads me into hostile confontation and arguement with fellow believers, rather than civil discussions for the glory of God, I make theology an idol.

When my love of RT reaches a level where I cloister myself away with a copy of "The Institutes" rather than venture out to engage the world in self-sacrifical love as I proclaim the good news, then my theology has become an idol.

I pray that God will keep me from making RT an idol even as he keeps me an advocate of its tenets.

Ultimately, I should be seeking 2 things:

- to see unbelievers saved by grace thru faith and adopted into God's family (even if they don't understand that and they come in as confused Arminian brothers)

- to see brothers in Christ stand together globally, agreeing on the essentials of the faith, and partenering in fellowship and evangelism.

Desiring to see all Christians become 5-pointers is a good thing for their growth and God's glory. Letting that desire eclipse the call that we have to proclaim simple gospel truth in love, thats when an idolatry of theology begins.

I am committing to be more aware of when I lead discussions into overly deep theological concepts and thereby I look to keep my usual conversations on basic truth and personal matters. Rather than pondering the Order of Decrees for 2 hours in our mens group,it may be better to engage in more prayer and more discussion of how each of us is really doing in life, in our personal walk with Christ, and in our efforts to proclaim the gospel to those lost around us, by word and deed.

I am thankful for the thought-provoking word I received at group on Tuesday and I pray that it will be useful in balancing my Christian life. Thanks guys.

Hinn: Holy or Haughty?

Is this a strong affirmation of the Trinity?

The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent, self-revealed "I AM" and has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (from the Benny Hinn Ministries Statement of Faith)

Last night on Nightline, there was a feature segment about Binny Hinn. It was very interesting to see clip after clip of people falling down after being "healed" by Benny. Several things caught my attention...

1 - There has never been any evidence collected to show conclusively that Benny Hinn actually heals people. In fact, in the interview he admits that he doesn't have any evidence of healing. It seems to me that anyone really healing to the degree he "can" would want to have those miracles documented for God's glory...huh.

2 - When you watch the clips of Benny healing folks, you tend to see lots of people on stage who appear to be from an uneducated, low socioeconomic status. Yes, I stereotyped and no, I am not saying that means those individuals are worth less than any of us. However, it is a fact that low education, lack of finances, and akward social abilities often lead people in vulnerable and desperate situations where they can be easily confused and/or easily given in to the emotional exagerations that I believe we see at Hinn revivials...but maybe I am just overly profiling..?

3 - Even though Benny Hinn claims to have given all financial records from his ministry to the Senator who is investigating prosperity gospel leaders, Benny said that he was unable to provide the same info for public disclosure. He claimed that his witholding of the financial data was due to a confidentiality agreement with the Senator. The Senators office denied the existence of an agreement...interesting.

4 - Several times in the interview, when the questions got tough for Benny, his off-camera publicist would interupt the reporter and try to steer the conversation off of healing and finances. (Strange since that is the bread and butter of Hinn's work) For his part, Benny was akward in these moments, telling his publicist that he was glad to be asked hard questions and even reaching forward to oddly shake the reporters hand in thanks for the difficult interogatives...run away, run away!

5 - Mostly, when the reporter asked a very plain question to Benny that was along the lines of: "Do you take advantage of people in need by providing false healing for a fee?" Well, Benny begin to get really animated. He sat up, moved his hands, swallowed hard, and essentially changed his whole demeanor for that question. No where else in the show did he get so worked up. I am no expert (like Tim Roth on Lie to Me), but I am pretty sure that his body language indicated a lie.
Check it out HERE.

How can people be so duped? It blows my mind. I guess that such false ministires gain success because they appeal to the carnal selfishness inside us. Its so sad.

All that to get back to my original question, is the statement of faith regarding the Trinity by Hinn an adequate one or is it so vague as to be outside the faith? I am going with the latter.

God is Love

He sure is, and you need to understand exactly what that means. Most of the West is very confused. Try these two resources:

Buy an awesome, cheap, and short treatise on the subject


At first thought, understanding the doctrine of the love of God seems simple compared to trying to fathom other doctrines like that of the Trinity or predestination. Especially since the overwhelming majority of those who believe in God view Him as a loving being.That is precisely what makes this doctrine so difficult.

The only aspect of God's character the world still believes in is His love. His holiness, His sovereignty, His wrath are often rejected as being incompatible with a "loving" God. Because pop culture has so distorted and secularized God's love, many Christians have lost a biblical understanding of it and, in turn, lost a vital means to knowing who God is.

The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of Godseeks to restore what we have lost. In this treatment of many of the Bible's passages regarding divine love, noted evangelical scholar D. A. Carson not only critiques sentimental ideas such as "God hates the sin but loves the sinner," but provides a compelling perspective on the nature of God and why He loves as He does.

Carson blends his discourse with discussion of how God's sovereignty and holiness complete the biblical picture of who He is and how He loves.In doing away with trivialities and cliches, this work gets to the heart of this all-important doctrine from an unflinching evangelical perspective. Yet it does so without losing its personal emphasis: for in understanding more of the comprehensive nature of God's love as declared in His Word, you will come to understand God and His unending love for you more completely.

OR

listen to this mp3 for a summary

Both resources are from D.A. Carson. Dr. Carson is one of the most distinguished New Testament scholars in the world. He is a professor at TEDS and a member of The Gospel Coalition.

Help!

The Scripture records that just after Jesus death, an amazing thing occurred. A thing which really bothers me and I need to pick you guys brains for assistance. Whats up with this:

Matthew 27:52-53
The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Were these the Old Testament saints coming out of Abraham's bosom and into heaven?

How does that concur with the end times when the dead in Christ shall rise first?

If they appeared to many, why didn't it get recorded anywhere but the Gospels?

Help me figure this one out!

The Lord's Table

Today at our home church (Southpoint Presbyterian) we celebrated communion. It was the most moving instance of remembering the Lord that I have ever had. I think that the main reason for that was something our pastor said this morning.

He quoted the verse in 1 Corinthians 11 that tells us to examine ourselves before we come to the table. Too often I have spent my Sunday morning before communion dwelling on this verse and picking thru my recent (and distant) past to find some sin that would keep me from receiving the bread and wine (or grape juice..lol).

However, the way Matthew explained it this morning I found myself understanding that the requirement for coming before the table is not being blameless in our moral life - we never can be - the requirement for taking communion is that you truly place your faith in Christ and what he did for us by taking our punishment for sin.

When I stopped searching for a nit-picky reason that I was unworthy and I simply examined my heart to be sure that I did have real relationship with the Lord, I felt very unburdened and my joy in communion this morning was unlike any other time in my life. Awesome.

Justification

A short Piper video that I found helpful because he made this point:

God doesn't look at those who are "In Christ" as guilty but forgiven, he actually declares us not guilty. Wow.

lol

Piper in 1979

To celebrate or not to celebrate...

What do I feel about celebrating Halloween, the Easter Bunny, and Santa in light of my beliefs as a Christian?

Before I answer, let me say a few words about the various attitudes out there. On one side of the equation are believers who embrace the demonic side of Halloween, who give more "airtime" to the Easter Bunny than the ressurection, and who spend most of the Christmas season trapped in consumerism and Santa stories. On the other side are those individuals who feel convicted that these cultural festivities detract from the true meanings and beliefs of our faith, sometimes to the extreme of cloistering themselves away lest the secular icons taint them.

I believe that anyone who spends Halloween dressed up as a hooker or a demon is probably not walking very closely with Christ. They are not recognizing the reality of spiritual warfare, which probably indicates they don't take the bible too seriously. Likewise, if a family is so engrossed with bunnies and elves that they essentially deny the celebration and power of the nativity and the gospel - then I would have real difficulty in saying that was ok. I tend to think that such actions might even be denying Christ to some degree.

On the other hand, if someone is a sound believer with orthodox faith and they feel convicted that their family should not participate in the cultural activities - so be it. I don't believe that we should injure our conscience when it bears out decisions that are believed to be biblically-based (where the bible doesn't speak). I would also argue that no other believers should give that individual grief over their beliefs. If that person was trying to condemn others for participating in the holidays - then it may be appropriate to respectfully debate the issue, but we should never seek to make others (acting in accordance with their biblically based conscience) feel as if they are outsiders. Reasonable discussion may persuade, insults and mocking never does.

I personally advocate the Way of the Mean (thanks Aristotle!) - that is, we should seek to avoid deficiency (withdrawing from the world) and we should also seek to avoid excess (emersing ourselves in the world). We should strive to be "in the world, but not of the world." (I do not have a bible handy to give reference on that, sorry)

My family does participate in Halloween, we do talk about mythical bunnies, and yes we lie to our child about the existence of that jolly old soul. It is my belief that culture is so full of these things that we can't lock ourselves away from them. Yet, I also feel that culture is too enamoured with these things for its own good. Thus, I walk a middle road...

We celebrate Halloween with pumpkins, scarecrows, and hay rides - not ghosts, skulls, and zombies. We dress up as firemen, lions, and knights - not demons, monsters, or vampires.

We talk about the Easter Bunny as the bearer of an Easter morning fun basket - but we stay focused that the basket is to celebrate the ressurection of Jesus. Our Easter books aren't about Peter Cottontail, they are about the empty tomb.

We play the Christmas Eve game about St. Nick coming down our non-existent fireplace and we put up a Christmas tree - but, it is our Little People Nativity Set and our emphasis on the birth narative that hold the central place in our home.

I believe that you can do great damage to your children by allowing them to fall into the faithless vacumn of holiday celebration that our "Christian nation" has created. Don't start off your kids life by teaching them to value dark spirits and fairy tale creatures more than the risen Lord. When they grow up, their foundation will be weak and a storm may surely sweep them away.

I also think that damage (but much less damage) can be done by attempting to remove your kids from the culture around us. One day they will be exposed to these things and they will have to make independent, intelligent decisions on how to balance the mocking they will receive at school with the fundamentalism they were taught. Why put them in a position where it may be difficult for them to share the gospel because they are seen as "those weird Christian kids."

There is a better way, be in this world (just as Jesus ate with sinners) and yet, do not partake in those activities that overshadow or bring shame on the cross. I think we can play a role in Halloween, talk about the Easter Bunny, and allow our kids to believe in Santa without doing so to an extreme that blots out Christ. I encourage everyone to think about this issue and seek the middle ground.

Ultimately, we want to raise our kids with the ability to proclaim the Gospel. To do that they must venture into "enemy territory", our job is to equip them to survive and make headway in that battle. Sending them out unarmed AND keeping them back at base are both ineffective ways to raise the flag for the glory of God in Christ!

Shouting Match at GSU

It was relayed to me today that there was a recent student demonstration by some overly zealous evangelicals at Georgia State University this week…

Apparently, earlier this week, some Christians decided to stand in one of the main throughways at the college and display some large signs which read along the lines of: “Liars, Gays, Drunks, etc…are going to hell.”

This attracted the ire of some of the homosexual advocates on campus and there was a verbal confrontation that ensued. That confrontation sparked a protest by the homosexual supporters against the religious group the next day.

That group versus group dynamic is described as turning into a shouting match with the zealots screaming that the gays were going to hell and the gays screaming that they loved everyone, specifically “we love all you GD MFers!”

In the end everyone lost their cool and both groups looked stupid – or so I’m told.

These events influenced me to restate my position on homosexuality:

I wrote a position paper on this subject a few months ago that may be useful - I will reprint it here:
____________________________
A Position Paper on Homosexuality
November 1, 2008

Preface:
It is my intention in writing this paper to express my current opinion on the issue of homosexuality. This paper is a response to the onslaught of pro-homosexual media in America today and the bewildering confusion regarding this issue in the church. My views on this subject have been defined after much thought, prayer, and consultation of Scripture.[1] As always, please read this with the prayer that God will open your eyes to the truth of his will. Most importantly, keep your heart guarded against letting this (or any other immoral social issue) become the emphasis of your Christian walk or understanding of the faith writ large. Remember that it is the gospel of the grace of Jesus that is the "good news" which saves us from ourselves.

2 Corinthians 5:21
"For our sake (God) made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in (Jesus) we might become the righteousness of God."
____________________________
1. Homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord. It is an egregious sin in the eyes of a perfectly holy being.[2]

2. The immorality of homosexuality is not my personal opinion or a societal more. It is the recorded decision of the unchanging Lord of all creation.[3]

3. In no way should this truth be used as an excuse for abusing homosexuals either verbally or physically.[4]

4. Although homosexuality was a capital offense according to the Mosaic Law in the Old Covenant[5], it is understood that we are now removed from that theocratic system and are under a different relationship with God. We are in the New Covenant, instituted by Jesus Christ[6], wherein the moral principles (but not the punitive prescriptions) apply.

5. Homosexuality is too often the prevailing focus of Christians as we discuss and rightly discourage sexual sins. This sin is grouped with several other sexual immoralities in Scripture[7] and they are all equally grievous to the Lord as they all separate us from him if we are without Christ.[8] We must never push aside the battle against lust, fornication, adultery, masturbation, incest, etc as we address homosexuality.[9]

6. Our response to this issue in contemporary society should be to refrain from judgment on non-Christian homosexuals whom we know and to love and pray for them as well as to share the gospel with them.[10] Once they are regenerate, we should pray for the Spirit to speedily convict them of their sin and assist them to turn from that lifestyle. At the same time, we must be watchful of brethren who call themselves Christ-followers while continuing to habitually engage in immorality. In that case, church discipline may be necessary.[11]

7. Politically we may stand up against the tide of pro-homosexual propaganda coming from the Hollywood gay media lobby and the proponents of same-sex marriage; however we must always do so peacefully and graciously[12]. Dissemination of the truth is our best weapon. In this battle against declining moral values we must be bold with the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of our God.[13]
_____________________________
FAQ:

Q: Can a homosexual be a Christian?

A: Absolutely. Even after we have been justified by Christ’s blood and adopted into God’s children do we not all still sin? There is no sin that can separate us from Christ once we have been elected.[14] However, as the believer progresses in his sanctification we should see the casting off of the old flesh and a heart/ lifestyle which more closely resembles that of our Lord Jesus.[15]

Q: Can a homosexual be a leader in the church?

A: Absolutely not. The guidelines for elders, deacons, and overseers in the local church are detailed in Scripture and give a clear picture of a man who is the husband of only one wife amongst multiple other virtues.[16] Would we allow a man engaged in ongoing fornication or adultery function as a leader in the church? I imagine not. Neither should anyone who has not completely renounced their homosexual lifestyle.

Q: What about gay marriage?

A: Same-sex marriage (gays can already legally marry someone of the opposite sex) is obviously against God’s intention of a man and a woman as expressed in Genesis 2:18 and 2:24. Additionally, it serves no purpose for the state as a social contract. Benefits are bestowed upon married couples (i.e. tax breaks) because of the general expectation for the production of progeny to continue the citizenry. By nature and design, same-sex marriages cannot function in that way and therefore should not be legally recognized. Additionally, civil unions should not be granted. Once the homosexuals have all of the benefits of marriage but not the name, they will be correct in their cry of “discrimination.”
____________________________________
A final word against homosexuality for those who do not believe in God and/or the Bible:

If nature is the ultimate reality then it is clear that homosexuality was never its intent. Males and females are born with very different anatomical structures that when used according to their proper telos produce the specific result of continued life.

While some species of animal have been seen engaging in homosexual behaviors, it must be understood that those actions (results of confused stimuli) are never an exclusive “orientation”; as such a manufactured lifestyle would be evidently detrimental to the utmost concern of nature herself, the preservation and continuation of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:

[1] All my reading of God’s Word, and all quotes in this paper, are from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible.

[2] Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

[3] 2 Timothy 3:16 –“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” If the existence of God and/ or the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible is questioned at this point, the gospel message and a secular argument, which is made at the end of this paper, may be appropriate.

[4] Romans 12:17 –“Repay no one evil for evil,”

[5] Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

[6] Luke 22:20 – “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

[7] 1 Thessalonians 4:3 – “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;”

[8] Ephesians 2:13-16 – “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”

[9] Editorial – The tendency to be vocal in our discussion of homosexuality and not the other sins (like adultery and fornication) may be due to the prevailing number of individuals, even church members and leaders, who are participating in the unspoken sins. With premarital sex, cheating, and porn addiction on the rise our sin nature may be pushing us to ignore our own shortcomings by revealing others. We must be prayerful and repentant to prevent this occurrence.

[10] 1 Corinthians 5:12 – “For what have I to do with judging outsiders?”

[11] 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 – “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’”

[12] 1 Peter 3:15-16 – “…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…”

[13] Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12 – “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

[14] Romans 8:38-39 – “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

[15] Ephesians 4:22-24 – “…to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

[16] 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9.

New Books and a Quote

I read this recently. It was not very good. Cheesy thriller with some Christian verbage included. No important meaning.



Thus I have taken a break from religious reading and ventured to the public library where I found this (it makes me excited - I like the author)


______________________________________________________

The Christian soldier must avoid two evils—he must not faint or yield in the time of fight, and after a victory he must not wax insolent and secure. When he has overcome, he is so to behave himself as though he were presently again to be assaulted. For Satan's temptations, like the waves of the sea, do follow one in the neck of the other.

—George Downame

Which translation to choose?

In honor of my "intense conversation" at men's discipleship group last night...
___________________________________________________

The Scripture tells us that "...the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" in Hebrews 4:12.

Gods Word also tells us to take "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" Ephesians 6:17

Describing the Scriptures as a bladed offensive weapon is a popular metaphor in the Word. It seems pretty obvious why, the Word of God is by inherent definition powerful and logically useful for those to trust it as they seek to wage battle on the evil one and the internal evil of their fallen nature. Look at the example of Jesus temptation by Satan in the wilderness - he quoted Scripture to drive the devil away.

Therefore, just as no warrior would go into conflict with a rusty or dull sword because it would be inadequate for cutting and stabbing, I suggest that no Christian should hold up inadequate translation of the Bible as their offensive weapon in spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, most people are not even very aware of the different translations, how they render the original languages, or the pros and cons surrounding them.

I want to take a quick moment to sketch this issue and then offer my thoughts...
________________________

There are three general translation philosophies used to transform the Greek and Hebrew versions into English.

The first is the "Idiomatic" translations. This is a liberal paraphrase of the original texts used to make the Bible accessible in modern vernacular, usually designed for those who have not read the Bible before and who are intimidated by the perceived academic nature of Bible study. The Living Bible and The Message are examples of this method.

The second view is the "Dynamic Equivalency" translation. In these versions the original languages have been re-penned using a "thought for thought" philosophy that attempts to understand the main point behind a sentence and subsequently to render it in English. The popular New International Version is the standard bearer in dynamic translation. The New Living Translation can also be considered in this category although it has some leanings towards a paraphrase translation at times.

Third, the "Formal Equivalency" method of translation is a virtual "word for word" In this version the original words are translated as closely as possible to retain as much original intent as possible. The Kings James Version was the mainstay of this philosophy for a very long time, but its clunky 17th century language has seen it being replaced by the New American Standard and the English Standard Version.

So, how did you choose your Bible version? Did someone give it to you? Did you even realize there were different versions? Does it matter which one you use?

I think that the version you choose should be a thoughtful decision based on what you intend to do with the Bible. If you intend to place it on a shelf for dust collection, then who cares? If you plan to read the Bible occasionally to get the main points correct, then a dynamic translation may be sufficient. However, I believe that if you seek to dig into God's Word and study what he is revealing and communication about Himself then a formal equivalency translation is necessary.

So what about those idiomatic paraphrases you ask...

If you want to read the Bible as a nice story without all that "theological mumbo-jumbo" then a paraphrase would suit your needs. I mean, I know that the central point is put forth the same way in each kind of translation - Jesus is crucified and he rises from the dead. However, the deep meaning behind the facts is often lost when distinctly theological language is left out. Look at the Message version of the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best -
As above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you
and forgiving others.
Keep us safe
from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!"

Give me a break! That kind of watered down view of Holy Scripture, turning it into 5th grade, feel-good language - it makes me ill. I do not subscribe to the idea that some folks out there just can't read dynamic and formal equivalency translations because they are too hard to understand and that they need a more approachable version. That is crap. Its distinctly unReformed (that is to say unbiblical) to think that the Spirit of God needs us to lower the language a few notches so people can get it. If the Holy Spirit is working inside you, you will push into God's word and seek to overcome those difficulties thru the help of pastors and fellow believers.

Don't get me wrong...I believe that many may have read and benefitted from paraphrases in the past, but I think that the main use of paraphrase versions as a choice of text is as a cop-out for those nominal or immature Christians who don't want faith as a main course in their life, but rather as a Sunday morning side dish.

Ultimately, I hope to one day be able to pursue a MDiv. and receive formal linguistic training in Greek and Hebrew so that I may read the texts in the original languages. Until that day comes however, rest assured that I will be delving into my formal equivalency translation and I hope you will too.
____________________________________________________________
For more info (and a genuine scholarly take on this) look at The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken HERE.

How to Train Your People to Laugh at Anything

A repost of something very interesting. Thanks JT.
see original here
_______________________
A few weeks ago John Piper spoke at a conference for the American Association of Christian Counselors. You should listen to the first five minutes. Piper decided to be as transparent as possible, given the audience, and to discuss some of the prevailing sins that he has struggled with his entire life. And the audience laughed uproariously. Piper was obviously perplexed and commented on how strange their reaction was.

If you didn’t know Piper, some of it could probably come across–at least initially–as unintentionally funny. But it is quite clear soon after that Piper was not cracking jokes but was being deadly serious about sin.

Greg Gilbert, calling it “one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard,” sees in this an “incredibly important and massively undervalued lesson”:

Do you see, at root, what had happened at that conference? Over the course of a couple of days, those conferees had been trained to expect humor from the speakers and therefore to react to the speakers with laughter–all the way to the point that they were incapable of seeing that John Piper was being serious in his confession of sin to them. You can quibble with whether the first couple of Piper’s statements were (unintentionally, it seems) kind of funny. I happen to think they were. By the time he gets to about the 3-minute mark, though, there’s nothing funny left, and he’s moved into very serious stuff. Yet the atmosphere of humor and levity at that conference was so thick–the training so complete–that the people were incapable of seeing it. So they laughed at Piper’s confession of his sin.

Apparently the conditioning of that audience to think everything is funny took no more than a couple of days.

How deep do you think that conditioning would be for a church who sat under a funny-man pastor every Sunday for fifteen years?

Hate Crimes

Given the pending legislation regarding hate crimes, I decided to publish some good thoughts on the issue by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason Ministries (www.str.org)
_______________________________________

The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.

Hate crime legislation, then, turns out to be not really about hate, but politics. It's not hatred for the victim that is punished. That's covered under existing statutes. Rather, it's hatred for a protected class--African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals, etc.--that's punished under hate crime laws.

Such legislation makes two crimes out of one. The assault is a crime against the victim. The hate is a crime against the victim's group. Yet how does one make sense of a crime against a group that is a different crime from the one against the victim? Groups have no rights according to the Constitution.

Hate crime laws create a whole new category of faceless, personless victims--the injured class. They identify crimes against no one in particular, but crimes nonetheless, offenses that are punishable. They don't prohibit all hate, only politically incorrect hate.
______________________________________

I cannot let the day pass without talking about the death of Matthew Shepard. When I first read the details I was sickened. My heart sank as I went over the story in the paper today. It made me want to cry.
In Laramie, Wyoming, a homosexual student from the University of Wyoming was, according to the LA Times, "brutally beaten, burned and left tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow with grave injuries, including a smashed skull, authorities said. Four people have been arrested. A passerby by found the victim, Matthew Shepard, 22, near death half a day after the attack. He was unconscious and his skull had been smashed with a handgun. He also appeared to have suffered burns on his body and cuts on his head and face. The temperature had dropped to the low 30's. On Friday he was in critical condition on a respirator at the hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado".

Apparently the police have arrested two men and two women connected with the attack. The men allegedly lured their victim from the Fireside Bar, a campus hangout, by telling him they were gay. The three of them drove off in a truck and then the two men beat Shepard to within an inch of his life. They beat him in the truck and then beat him some more after tying him to a fence about a mile outside of Laramie. Shepard's shoes and wallet were taken. Apparently two young women who had helped dump Matthew's bloody clothing eventually led the police to the suspects. Shepard was found on Wednesday evening by a man on a bicycle who first thought he was a scarecrow or a dummy tied to the fence.

I don't know how anyone can read this account without being moved. It's hard for me to imagine how such a thing can happen. I know that Christians like myself have been called evil for saying homosexuality is evil. On that point I can't recant. I think homosexuality is evil and I don't think it is evil to call evil by its real name.

However, even given that homosexuality is evil, no one has any liberty to treat a human being like Matthew Shepard--made in the image of God--that way, regardless of his sinful condition (and we all share that condition), to beat him within an inch of his life the way this young man was beaten by two other college students. This is brutal, this is criminal, this is unconscionable, and it ought to be severely punished.

However, hear me clearly: There is no direct moral or logical connection between believing homosexuality is immoral and gay-bashing. There is none. It does not follow that if you think homosexuality is wrong or evil, you are encouraging others to torment homosexuals. KABC talk show host Al Rantel--himself a homosexual--put it this way: This kind of thinking would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley.

Obviously, many people disagree, holding that moral censure of homosexuality does lead to gay-bashing. Many are publicly vocal, loudly denouncing such judgments--and those who make them--as immoral. Here's my question for those of you who think this way: Does the fact that you say I'm immoral for making such judgments encourage others to beat me up? Of course not.

If other people beat me up for the things I believe or the lifestyle I live, their sin is on their own head. I don't hold that homosexuals are inciting others to violence against me simply because they publicly judge my views as immoral. By the same token, simply taking a moral position on homosexuality does not lead to gay-bashing.

Certainly, evil people will seize on any rationalization to justify harming others. But just because they use that as a rationalization doesn't mean it's actually the cause.

As a Christian, I stand completely against those who treated Matthew Shepard this way, even though I also stand without apology with strong moral convictions against homosexuality . There is no contradiction. And every Christian person ought to be appalled by what happened to this young man and condemn it without reservation. I ask you right now to pray for his life. [Matthew Shepard died a few days later.]

I initially intended to offer you only the concerns I've just made. As a Christian, I had to speak against this. However, as I read further in the article another factor emerged that is a deep concern to me and needs to be addressed.

The article went on to explain that the attack on Matthew Shepard will probably be an animus to extend hate crime legislation in Wyoming to cover sexual preference, legislation that has failed repeatedly because critics have said it would give homosexuals special rights.

Now, I don't know about the special rights issue. I'm not concerned about that right now. But I am against hate crime legislation. I think crimes like this ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. But I do not think thoughts should be punished. I don't think motivations should be punished. I don't think immoral personal dispositions towards others should be punished. To put it simply, I don't think hate should be punished.

If somebody wants to hate me, they can hate me. As we used to say when I was a kid, this is a free country. Even as youngsters we understood that America was a place where certain things were completely off limits to the government. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of religion. We have freedom of press. And we have freedom of thought. Minimally we can believe what we want, we can like or dislike whom we want, and we can love or hate whom we want.

I'm not approving of hate, nor do I want to encourage it. It should be discouraged, but using the law is the wrong way to do that. Lots of things people have the freedom to believe and think are immoral, but I am not in favor of punishing people for believing those things. I am not in favor of punishing cowboys in Wyoming just because they hate homosexuals. I think they should be punished for assaulting homosexuals, but further punishment should not be added for hate.

The problem with all hate crimes is that they criminalize thought, not just behavior. The behavior is criminal already. The answer to this terrible crime committed against this 22-year-old homosexual man in Wyoming is not legislation against thought, but a punishment of the offenders to the full extent of the law for violating laws already on the books that protect all human beings equally from this kind of treatment. We should legislate against the action, not the thinking. Once we start legislating against the thinking, we're in big trouble.

Frankly, I'm surprised hate crimes legislation has not suffered a serious judicial challenge. The 14th amendment would offer adequate grounds. In a state with hate crimes legislation, if someone beat me exactly like Matthew Shepard was beaten, they would receive less punishment. That means I wouldn't have the same protection as he would, a violation of the equal protection clause.

Even apart from the 14th amendment, how can we make any thought punishable by the law? Making hate illegal isn't going to prevent hateful acts. There are already sanctions against assault. Do you think adding a little more punishment for the thought associated with the crime is going to deter a crime motivated by a powerful passion like hate?

The only real result will be to take the Orwellian step of criminalizing thought. As far as I'm concerned, I want to continue to cling to my boyhood ideal that America is still a free country, though this notion is becoming increasingly fanciful.
_____________________________________________

Jesus is much better than poop!

Tonight was my first ever opportunity to give a biblical message to others in a formal setting. I had done lots of public speaking and teaching thru the military and college, but never before had I taught the truth of God to a group of people assembled for just that thing.

It was a sobering thing to prepare for. I prayed that the Spirit would move within me for God's glory and I kept in mind the admonition of James 3:1
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness"

I was tasked with providing a short message to our new student ministry. I decided to go forward with a message that combined something all kids can relate to...talking about poop...with the deep biblical truth of Sola Christi. Be sure to keep reading after you look at my message - there was an interesting outcome.
______________________________________________________________
LEAD IN WITH BEDPAN BABY RUTH AND MT DEW SKIT…ME v. 2 STUDENTS

Alright everybody – that was gross. And oddly enough it was a great lead-in to my short message tonight, the title of which is:

Jesus is much better than poop!

Tonight I wanna talk to you about a verse from the New Testament that centers on poop. Did anybody know there is a bible passage about poop? No, well I think you’ll like it. Before we begin – lets pray:

“Father, thank you for being here in the person of your Holy Spirit tonight, thank you for revealing yourself to us in your word, thank you for have so much love for us that you sent Jesus here to be a sacrifice for us that we might be able to stand in your presence. Be with us tonight, open our ears to your truth, and fill up our heart with a passion for you. In Jesus name, Amen.”

So…poo. Everyone loves a good talk about poo and I wanna show you guys where the Bible talks about poo. Lets open up a bible to Chapter 3 of Philippians. This is a passage where the Apostle (that means he was set apart by Jesus as a leader in the early church) Paul is writing a letter to his friends at a church in modern Greece.

Let me read verses 2-11, you can follow along on the Powerpoint if you don’t have a bible.

2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

So – the first thing we see is Paul telling his friends to be on the lookout for “dogs!” What he means here is preachers trying to roll up in their church and tell the members that they need more than Jesus to be saved. These “Judiazers” would tell people that they have to be circumcised (if you don’t know what that is, trust me it would be painful and you don’t wanna know) in order to go to heaven.

Paul insults these “Judiazers” because he is so angry that they are telling his friends lies about salvation. Paul is convinced that all we need to be saved is Jesus and Jesus alone! Paul wants his friends to understand that nothing they can do, including circumcision, can get them any closer to God and everything they do to try is pointless and can be tossed out.

Next, Paul wants to prove to his friends that extra stuff is of no use for salvation (only Jesus) even if that extra stuff is really good stuff. Paul uses himself as an example here. So what is Paul saying about himself? What kind of man is he saying that he is according to the religious customs of that day?

He is basically saying “I’m the bomb” and if anyone has the ability to think that their actions are really religious and that their life can get them closer to God, its him. He talks about the family he was born into, his smarts in school, his excellence in his job, etc… He is saying that he was as “good” as it could get. He even uses the word blameless at the end of his example!

And then…

He says what he says in verses 7-8. Let me read it for you again.

Read verses 7-8

So what does he say here? Yes, he says that none of those things (family, attending church every time he was supposed to, memorizing the Old Testament)…none of those things are worth anything compared to knowing Christ.

One thing I want to point out to you tonight is that the word “rubbish” in the verse. Anyone know what rubbish is?

Good, now truth is that word actually meant poop in the original language that Paul wrote it in. In fact, it meant a slang version of the word poo that I bet no one here is allowed to say, especially not in church. To get a picture, think about the nastiest poo you have ever seen…that is what he means by “rubbish”.

Paul is saying that all our hard work to try and be good, all the cool guy status that we can get for ourselves, all the fame that so many see in celebrities and then try to get for themselves…all that is nothing but poo. Steaming, gooey, smells so bad you wanna gag POO!

Poo you say? Those things sound pretty good huh? Being rich, famous, everyone liking you…can’t get much better than that can it?

Paul says it can. He says that the thing which makes all those accomplishment nothing but poo is when you compare them to the joy of knowing Jesus as your Lord and his Savior. Because when we know Jesus and trust in him instead of our own efforts, that’s when we gain eternal life.

Jesus is the key to salvation. He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except thru me.” Only Jesus can serve as the path to heaven. If we try to be “good” to get to heaven we are kidding ourselves.

Our ability to stand before God has nothing to do with us. It is totally because of what Jesus did for us. He died on that cross and took away our sin. Then he rose from the dead and gave us his righteousness (or his sinless life) so that we look as pure as Jesus in Gods eyes. The wonderful thing is that we didn’t deserve that and he still did it for us!

One more point – this doesn’t mean that being Christian has nothing to do with “being good.” It has a lot to do with that. The difference is, when we try to be good enough in our own power to get to God we always fail – we can’t really be good enough AND our focus is never on God, it’s on ourselves and trying to be better. When we trust in what Jesus did, our focus is on God and his Spirit will move inside us to bring us to do good things…not because we are trying to get to heaven – but because we begin to love doing good things. We begin to love good things instead of bad things because the Spirit of a perfectly good God is living in us. Be sure to realize that v. 10 says it may not always be easy!

When we understand all of that, we can say with Paul that anything we are or anything we do to try and get us to heaven is poop – a big stinky turd – compared to the wonderful joy that is found in trusting Jesus to be the one who died and did it for us. He will walk with us thru a fallen world and into eternal joy.

So as we finish up tonight, I hope you take 2 things away from here with you when you leave.

1) I hope that every time you look at a pile of poop from now on you will think about what Paul said and how the only way to be with God forever is thru Jesus – everything else is worth nothing except a flush.
2) Mostly, if you are already a child of God, remember that Jesus is there for you – lean on him and not the poop of this world for your happiness. If you haven’t seen Jesus for being much better than poop yet, I want you to know that Jesus had already paid the price and that you can be saved by his payment when you trust in him and make him your #1 treasure. If that is something you are interested in, you can talk with me or any leader after the meeting. (Discussion time)
_____________________________________________

After the message we had some discussion time and then we came back together and wrapped up the message. One of our students stood up and told us that she had been struggling for weeks because she felt that she wasn't doing enough for Christ. She said that hearing my message tonight assured her that there was nothing she could do for Christ. It encouraged her that despite her undeserving nature, Christ had done it all for her on the cross.

I was very touched by the impact that the Holy Spirit made in her life via my message. I pray that God will use me in other settings and places to a similar end, for the glory of his truth and his name!

Craig-Wolpert Debate

I just finished listening to a wonderful debate on "Is God a Delusion" between William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert. It can be found here:

http://apologetics.blogspot.com/2009/09/william-lane-craig-vs-lewis-wolpert-is.html

I highly suggest taking the 1.5 hours to listen (put it in your mp3 player) because it is a great example of several things I have come to believe about apologetics.

1) When I first got into apologetics (around 2005) I was under a strong belief that good evidence could persuade people of God's existence and of Christ's resurrection. I imagined that a logical argument would convince any rational person. I never saw any fruit of that thinking.

Numerous debates and discussions later, I decided that apologetics and debating was primarily for the strengthening of the believer, not the persuasion of the unbeliever. Believers have doubts, and that's a natural and ok thing. What we want to avoid is crippling doubt, the kind that stops you from living a life with God as your highest treasure. To combat that doubt, apologetics can be a useful tool.

The debate between these two men is good in showing that science and faith are not exclusive (despite what the Discovery and History channels say) and that our faith is confirmed to a good extent with rational evidences. That should be encouraging to us when we hit a "doubtbump."

2) The debate also gives a clear view of why the Holy Spirit must be the persuader and convincer in salvation. Dr. Wolpert is bombarded in the debate with natural and logical evidence for the reality of God and of Jesus.

Each and every time Dr. Wolpert responds to Dr. Craig, he refuses to address the issue or the evidence, he simply dismisses it out of hand. Wolpert is so presuppositionally rooted in his atheism that he can't follow the evidence. He is dead in his trespasses and no amount of talking will bring him to life.

The only thing that brings dead people back is recessitation. That comes by means of divine CPR. The Spirit of God moves to bring the dead to life (the new birth, being born again) and he uses a variety of people, things, and situations to do so.

It may be that the Spirit uses apologetics and debates to occasionally change the nature of fallen men. Praise God for that, but don't forget that it wasn't the argument or the evidence itself that instituted that persons salvation...it was the Lord.

Sola Gloria

2 thoughts

1 - American attitudes towards death, more specifically American Christian attitudes toward death and funerals are too morose. I understand that we mourn the loss of loved ones because we won't see them again in this world (and we might mourn the death of non-believers for deeper reasons) - however, we would do better to see the death of Christian brothers and sisters as celebrations.

Scripture tells us that 'to die is gain" and that "it is far better to depart and be with Christ" (Phillippians 1) - too often we don't embrace the unspeakable joy that one encounters as they pass from this mortal coil to eternal glory.

Our common denominator as believers (regardless of financial position, hardships, status, etc...) is that we all have a great future hope. When one of us passes into that reality it should be a thing of joy. Lets disgard the black clothes and the somber mood. Rather, we should take a hint from the Irish and the southern African - American playbooks.

When a beloved fellow believers dies, lets party...they are in heaven.
______________________________________

2 - The weight of condemnation is a thing which directly correlates to our soteriological status. If we are unsaved, we are under condemnation due to Adam and nothing we do can lift that death sentence (Romans 5). However, if God has mercifully elected us, our condemnation is lifted and we are in Christ (Romans 8).

Remember that if you feel the hand of God discipling you. That thing you undergo is a trial given to you in love and not in anger (Hebrews 12). Be thankful for his correction as it draws you closer to him and induces your spirit to be more like Christ.