It's a pretty common occurrence in our home. We will tell our children to do something and find a few moments later that the something has not been done. In response, I usually ask them, "Why didn't you do what I told you to do?" More times than not, they will avoid answering my question altogether and immediately begin doing the something.
My tendency is to let this fly. I mean, why not? The ultimate goal is accomplished - they did the something right? Wrong. The goal is not to merely get the something done, but to get it done from an obedient heart. We want to raise Christians not Pharisees. When we simply allow our children to flip the proverbial switch from disobedience to obedience, we fail to teach them the most distinguishing and significant practice of the Christian life - repentance and faith.
We shouldn't fool ourselves though. We do this too. And it would not be completely incorrect to say that our children have learned it from us. In our typical routine we listen to sermons, read books as well as our Bible. After learning that we have been living some part of our lives wrongly, we make a decision to change. It's pretty simple. I was doing this wrongly, I need to do it rightly. I resolve now to do it rightly. Case closed.
While this recipe of living may produce a behaving community, it really produces a very superficial and critical pack of religious wolves.
Living wrongly may affect us, but it does not affect only us. As Christians under the Lordship of Christ, our lives are deeply personal and moral. Sin always affects someone else, especially our personal God. Switching the obedient switch is like telling your spouse after you have committed adultery, "It's okay babe, I have listened to a sermon. I won't do that anymore. Let's hug." All this does is communicate that we could care less about everyone but ourselves. Everyone else is valueless - they don't matter.
When we slow down, however, to consider how we have deeply offended someone by our disobedient behavior, we communicate that they matter - that their life is valuable. Before we take an obedient step with our feet, we must make a confessional statement with our lips. When we repent, we acknowledge all of who they are and all of who we are. We are not religious success stories, we are fallen sinners.
This repentance produces both deep humility and deep faith. Taking the time to mourn our sin provides the context for understanding that our righteousness is as filthy rags. This repentance forces us to look beyond ourselves for righteousness. It causes us to reach for the One who is perfect in obedience and who alone can repair our fallenness. Clinging to Christ this way is the way of repentance and faith.
When we skim past repentance we communicate that we are the ones that matter and that we can obtain righteousness in our own strength. But when we repent and embrace Christ, we communicate that He is the One that matters and that we desperately need His strength to do anything at all.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Another Irony In Atheism
Science, these days, is often associated with materialistic naturalism. Science is empirical; that is, it relies on experiments, observations and calculations to develop theories as well as test them. Materialistic naturalism is a belief that material nature is all there is. There is a natural/material explanation for everything. There is nothing supernatural.
If something seems extraordinary or supernatural, the naturalist believes that there must be an explanation that falls within the natural realm. In other words, even if God Himself were to come to earth in a miraculous way, the naturalist would deny the supernaturally of it. He would still deny God.
In 1995, the American Natural Association of Biology Teachers stated the position which is generally held by major science organizations and educators:
“The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments.”
There is one huge problem with this. It is logically impossible to prove this position by using merely scientific means. I am not arguing for or against evolution at this time. I have done that other places. My purpose here is to point out the deep inconsistency that lies underneath the statements and beliefs of many modern scientists.
It is impossible to prove that everything is material in nature. Not only can this be disproven (laws of logic are real in the universe, but immaterial), but it most certainly cannot be scientifically proven. The universe is too large to empirically test the nature of it all. Further, it is impossible to state that all of nature has been material. We don’t have time machines. We cannot test things in the past.
To conclude, the naturalistic position is not a fact at all, but a philosophy that is believed or embraced by faith. As a matter of fact, many of the scientists that I have read or heard have not actually conducted the science themselves, but have only read other scientists' “findings.” I find it deeply ironic that they in turn look down upon Christians, who place their faith in the God-breathed Scriptures, while they place their faith in what a sinful man has written concerning his narrow and limited experience.
If something seems extraordinary or supernatural, the naturalist believes that there must be an explanation that falls within the natural realm. In other words, even if God Himself were to come to earth in a miraculous way, the naturalist would deny the supernaturally of it. He would still deny God.
In 1995, the American Natural Association of Biology Teachers stated the position which is generally held by major science organizations and educators:
“The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments.”
There is one huge problem with this. It is logically impossible to prove this position by using merely scientific means. I am not arguing for or against evolution at this time. I have done that other places. My purpose here is to point out the deep inconsistency that lies underneath the statements and beliefs of many modern scientists.
It is impossible to prove that everything is material in nature. Not only can this be disproven (laws of logic are real in the universe, but immaterial), but it most certainly cannot be scientifically proven. The universe is too large to empirically test the nature of it all. Further, it is impossible to state that all of nature has been material. We don’t have time machines. We cannot test things in the past.
To conclude, the naturalistic position is not a fact at all, but a philosophy that is believed or embraced by faith. As a matter of fact, many of the scientists that I have read or heard have not actually conducted the science themselves, but have only read other scientists' “findings.” I find it deeply ironic that they in turn look down upon Christians, who place their faith in the God-breathed Scriptures, while they place their faith in what a sinful man has written concerning his narrow and limited experience.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Raising Boys To Men Through Work
I have been reading a lot lately on raising men. I have a 3 year old son. I want to begin raising him to be a godly man. One resource that I have found to be tremendously helpful is Doug Wilson's, Future Men
. In it Wilson discusses masculinity, fatherhood, sin, laziness, liberty and much more, all from a biblical perspective. Scriptural references probably make up about fifteen percent of the entire book.
I was challenged and encouraged today when I read about laziness and work. Wilson states:
We were created to work. But when sin entered, God in His wisdom saw that thorns and thistles were now needed (Gen 3:17-19). In His grace, God cursed the ground. Just as the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, so is the sweat of the brow...
And so this is why boys need to be taught and disciplined in physical labor. Of course it is not an end in itself - the point should always be grace - but in the hands of wise parents, hard physical work is an important part of a boy's discipleship. He needs to know what it is like to be exhausted, to have callouses on his hands, and to work when his body does not really want to anymore. He needs this; God said so.
I was challenged because, in my own laziness, I'd rather pay someone to do most of the physical labor around my house. But hired labor is not going to father my son. I must repent of any laziness and faithfully work with my little boy. I think I'll have him weed-eat this weekend! Not really...
I was also encouraged and so thankful for my father, who regularly woke me up on Saturdays to help him work around the house. As a teen, these were less than desired times. Sleeping was preferable to building a deck or fence. But, looking back, those times were deeply satisfying. Much of what my dad taught me remains with me to this day. For the most part, I can work with my hands. This was given to me by a father who loved me enough to teach me about work. Thanks Andy for being such a great father.
. In it Wilson discusses masculinity, fatherhood, sin, laziness, liberty and much more, all from a biblical perspective. Scriptural references probably make up about fifteen percent of the entire book.I was challenged and encouraged today when I read about laziness and work. Wilson states:
We were created to work. But when sin entered, God in His wisdom saw that thorns and thistles were now needed (Gen 3:17-19). In His grace, God cursed the ground. Just as the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, so is the sweat of the brow...
And so this is why boys need to be taught and disciplined in physical labor. Of course it is not an end in itself - the point should always be grace - but in the hands of wise parents, hard physical work is an important part of a boy's discipleship. He needs to know what it is like to be exhausted, to have callouses on his hands, and to work when his body does not really want to anymore. He needs this; God said so.
I was challenged because, in my own laziness, I'd rather pay someone to do most of the physical labor around my house. But hired labor is not going to father my son. I must repent of any laziness and faithfully work with my little boy. I think I'll have him weed-eat this weekend! Not really...
I was also encouraged and so thankful for my father, who regularly woke me up on Saturdays to help him work around the house. As a teen, these were less than desired times. Sleeping was preferable to building a deck or fence. But, looking back, those times were deeply satisfying. Much of what my dad taught me remains with me to this day. For the most part, I can work with my hands. This was given to me by a father who loved me enough to teach me about work. Thanks Andy for being such a great father.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Rest of the Rest (8/26/11)
Throughout the week I tend to read and come across a lot of miscellaneous stuff. I can't comment or write on it all, so I have decided to pile it up during the week and give it all to you on Saturdays. I will call it "The Rest of the Rest." Enjoy.
Buy this today:
- PRo's new album, Dying to Live
is now available! I was going to list all of the songs that I thought were really good; but after listening to the whole album for a few days now, I'd have to list every single song. PRo is rough, doctrinally sound, real, transparent, honest and gospel-centered. I recommend it highly.
Parenting:
- Tim Challies posts Ten Tips for Teaching Kids here.
- Carl Truman gives some great wisdom and advice on teaching the Trinity to our children.
Apologetics:
- This is a great post by Mike Robinson on Van Til's Christian Theism and evidences. Yes, Van Til did believe in the use of evidences.
Funny:
- I hope you don't mind CR that I hyperlinked your post. I just thought it was hilarious.
Social Issues:
- Here is a great article on economics from a biblical perspective.
- Here is another good article on the music industry.
Misc:
- Steve Jobs steps down as Apple CEO.
- Debunking Sharks' Bad Reputation. This was a fascinating article about how Great White Sharks aren't really all that bad. This crazy guy goes free diving with them. The pics alone are worth taking a look.
Buy this today:
- PRo's new album, Dying to Live
is now available! I was going to list all of the songs that I thought were really good; but after listening to the whole album for a few days now, I'd have to list every single song. PRo is rough, doctrinally sound, real, transparent, honest and gospel-centered. I recommend it highly.Parenting:
- Tim Challies posts Ten Tips for Teaching Kids here.
- Carl Truman gives some great wisdom and advice on teaching the Trinity to our children.
Apologetics:
- This is a great post by Mike Robinson on Van Til's Christian Theism and evidences. Yes, Van Til did believe in the use of evidences.
Funny:
- I hope you don't mind CR that I hyperlinked your post. I just thought it was hilarious.
Social Issues:
- Here is a great article on economics from a biblical perspective.
- Here is another good article on the music industry.
Misc:
- Steve Jobs steps down as Apple CEO.
- Debunking Sharks' Bad Reputation. This was a fascinating article about how Great White Sharks aren't really all that bad. This crazy guy goes free diving with them. The pics alone are worth taking a look.
Sorry Sir Charles, This is Hilarious!
This is absolutely hilarious!!! Especially since I am from Auburn and vaguely remember watching Sir Charles play college ball.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Rescued By A Man With Down Syndrome
The article I read and wrote about the other day concerning the Danish attempt for a "perfect" society, has really affected me. The pragmatic attempt to rid society of the so-called burden of down syndrome must be identified as nothing other than wickedly evil.
The wickedness of the philosophy, I am sure, was communicated with polite, and politically correct language. But the message must not be lost. There is nothing new under the sun. If people inconvenience us in any way, or cost us money, they should die. We have the right to not be bothered with having to care for other individuals.
But as I wrote in my post, this goal will implode upon itself and turn the moral table up-side-down.
I went to Wal-Mart yesterday to get some groceries for an event that we were holding in the community. I didn't get a buggy. I didn't think I needed one. While I was on my way to get my items I passed by a man with down syndrome. The article about the Danes immediately refreshed in my mind. I kept walking.
As I piled the groceries up and tried to configure them under each arm, it was obvious that a cart would be a good idea. But I attempted to make it to the checkout counter anyway. About fifty paces later, the pack of cookies began to fall off of the top of my stack. So I shifted. Then the pack of drinks started to slip from underneath my other arm. It was becoming obvious that I wasn't going to make it. One mother and daughter passed by and giggled. Others simply walked by while everything was coming undone.
Then I felt the box of chips in my hand become lighter. I also noticed the pack of drinks was being taken from underneath my arm. As I looked to my side, I was blindsided. The man with down syndrome noticed my struggle and immediately came to help me. He walked with me to my destination. Then he shook my hand, smiled, and went back to shopping with his mother.
If there is anything that resembles perfection in society, that was it. As the "perfect" people walked by, it was the "imperfect" one who rescued me.
The wickedness of the philosophy, I am sure, was communicated with polite, and politically correct language. But the message must not be lost. There is nothing new under the sun. If people inconvenience us in any way, or cost us money, they should die. We have the right to not be bothered with having to care for other individuals.
But as I wrote in my post, this goal will implode upon itself and turn the moral table up-side-down.
I went to Wal-Mart yesterday to get some groceries for an event that we were holding in the community. I didn't get a buggy. I didn't think I needed one. While I was on my way to get my items I passed by a man with down syndrome. The article about the Danes immediately refreshed in my mind. I kept walking.
As I piled the groceries up and tried to configure them under each arm, it was obvious that a cart would be a good idea. But I attempted to make it to the checkout counter anyway. About fifty paces later, the pack of cookies began to fall off of the top of my stack. So I shifted. Then the pack of drinks started to slip from underneath my other arm. It was becoming obvious that I wasn't going to make it. One mother and daughter passed by and giggled. Others simply walked by while everything was coming undone.
Then I felt the box of chips in my hand become lighter. I also noticed the pack of drinks was being taken from underneath my arm. As I looked to my side, I was blindsided. The man with down syndrome noticed my struggle and immediately came to help me. He walked with me to my destination. Then he shook my hand, smiled, and went back to shopping with his mother.
If there is anything that resembles perfection in society, that was it. As the "perfect" people walked by, it was the "imperfect" one who rescued me.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
We Must Have Faith In Order To Reason
From the beginning people have tried to authorize the Word of God. We see this with Eve in the garden as well as the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century. Today, it is the air we breathe. We believe ultimately in the human reason's ability to critically examine God's Word with such accuracy, completeness and judgment, that we can make an objective decision concerning its validity. If it is, we will believe it. If it is not, we will not.
Sure, we may have the right and the ability to do this with other forms of literature as well as other historical documents. One thing we cannot do, however, is lump the Scriptures into the same pile with all other literary works. It's not the same. By its very nature, it is authoritative. Again, we may not authorize that which is ultimately authoritative. We must humbly recognize and embrace its intrinsic authority as we read and interpret what it is saying to us.
Here is a great comment from Willem VanGemeren
on the place of faith in the interpretation of Scripture:
The study of the Bible is unlike the study of any literary or religious text. It presupposes a personal faith and calls for a commitment of one's whole being. Out of concern for the authoritative claim of the BIble in in light of Judeo-Christian traditions through the centuries, the student of the Bible can and must appropriate the Bible with a faith commitment.
This assumption has two implications. First, one does not arbitrarily dismiss the testimony of the Fathers, Reformers, Puritans, or any other conscientious readers of the biblical text. We are part of a historical continuum. Knowledge has not begun with us, nor will it cease with us...Second, Christian students of the Old Testament must pass by the cross of Jesus Christ on their return to the Old Testament, and as such they can never lose their identity as a Christian...the fundamental error of critical scholarship is found in its common assumption that the goal of exegesis is objectivity.
VanGemeren goes on to note that the study of the Scriptures as a whole must begin with the presupposition that the Testaments witness to the one purpose of God with His people. The Scriptures are a witness about Someone who has done something.
After all, if Christ had not done "something," no one would be able to think at all. We are wholly and subjectively dependent upon Christ for everything we do or think. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can think rightly about Him apart from Him (Jn 15) - to authorize Him without His authority.
Sure, we may have the right and the ability to do this with other forms of literature as well as other historical documents. One thing we cannot do, however, is lump the Scriptures into the same pile with all other literary works. It's not the same. By its very nature, it is authoritative. Again, we may not authorize that which is ultimately authoritative. We must humbly recognize and embrace its intrinsic authority as we read and interpret what it is saying to us.
Here is a great comment from Willem VanGemeren
on the place of faith in the interpretation of Scripture:The study of the Bible is unlike the study of any literary or religious text. It presupposes a personal faith and calls for a commitment of one's whole being. Out of concern for the authoritative claim of the BIble in in light of Judeo-Christian traditions through the centuries, the student of the Bible can and must appropriate the Bible with a faith commitment.
This assumption has two implications. First, one does not arbitrarily dismiss the testimony of the Fathers, Reformers, Puritans, or any other conscientious readers of the biblical text. We are part of a historical continuum. Knowledge has not begun with us, nor will it cease with us...Second, Christian students of the Old Testament must pass by the cross of Jesus Christ on their return to the Old Testament, and as such they can never lose their identity as a Christian...the fundamental error of critical scholarship is found in its common assumption that the goal of exegesis is objectivity.
VanGemeren goes on to note that the study of the Scriptures as a whole must begin with the presupposition that the Testaments witness to the one purpose of God with His people. The Scriptures are a witness about Someone who has done something.
After all, if Christ had not done "something," no one would be able to think at all. We are wholly and subjectively dependent upon Christ for everything we do or think. It is the height of arrogance to think that we can think rightly about Him apart from Him (Jn 15) - to authorize Him without His authority.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Murdering Children With Down Syndrome, The Danish Attempt For A Perfect Society.
In an effort to create a perfect society, Denmark has begun its campaign to be "down-syndrome-free." Some people might be thinking that they are going to accomplish this by delegating a large portion of their national budget to preventative research. The reality is that they are pouring resources into prenatal screening. If the unborn child has down syndrome, it must die.
The Danes, according to this article, want to promote aborting fetuses with Down syndrome, so their society will be free of such people around 2030. One bioethicist describes it as a “fantastic achievement.”
Like it or not, these are the logical implications of an atheistic worldview; one that believes that the super-intellectual man has the right and authority to decide and dictate what life should and shouldn't look like. He is ultimately in charge of creating and ending life, as well as determining what goal each life should play in a given society. Anyone or anything that gets in the way of achieving this goal must simply go; and by any means necessary.
While my mind races through a thousand objections to this, I will only list a few.
First, when "God dies" in a society, man becomes a god. But fallen gods always fall. And when they fall, they take many with them. The results are devastating. This is a case in point.
Second, I'd like to point out the irony. Whether the bioethicists call this murder or not does not change the fact that it IS murder. Truth is objective and not subject to the whims of rebels. Replacing people who have natural disabilities with those with moral disabilities (like murder) does not make a more perfect society - quite the contrary!
Third, this is all built upon a presupposition that abortion is "one-issue" or an isolated position. When a people and its government condone the murder of innocent life, we can't act as if this does not affect other moral areas. Murder is the hight of human rebellion. It is a direct and active assault against God. We may not murder His image and act as if we do not want Him dead as well. This affects all areas of life and morality. If allowed to continue, I fear we have not seen the worst.
Fourth, how arrogant is a people who believe that they are without disabilities themselves, and that those with disabilities have nothing positive to offer humanity! The person who has perhaps brought the most change to my life is a blind man. Plus, every parent I know who has a child with down syndrome has said their child has proven to be a huge blessing to them and those around them.
Fifth, I wonder what percentage of the criminal population has down syndrome. I have never seen a serial killer or an inmate with the disability. If this is really about making a perfect society, then we need to kill a lot more people. How about all people. Being perfect is being sinless. We are all sinners. It's as simple as that. We should all die. This leads me to the next point.
Sixth, the philosophical leap from this method of creating a perfect society to Nazi Germany's method is not a long one. As soon as these atheistic bioethicists become consistent in their thinking, and figure out that the ontological difference between life inside of the womb is no different from life outside of the womb, those who are born with any disability whatsoever are "fair game." Might soon makes right. And the strong soon destroy the weak.
Last, judgment will come upon all who take innocent life - especially, innocent life with disabilities. May the Lord grant mercy to the Danes. May He grant mercy to us all. And may repentance come quickly. For when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, He will not come on a Cross, but with a sword. And His robe will quickly become drenched in the blood of His enemies.
Lord help us. Come Lord Jesus.
The Danes, according to this article, want to promote aborting fetuses with Down syndrome, so their society will be free of such people around 2030. One bioethicist describes it as a “fantastic achievement.”
Like it or not, these are the logical implications of an atheistic worldview; one that believes that the super-intellectual man has the right and authority to decide and dictate what life should and shouldn't look like. He is ultimately in charge of creating and ending life, as well as determining what goal each life should play in a given society. Anyone or anything that gets in the way of achieving this goal must simply go; and by any means necessary.
While my mind races through a thousand objections to this, I will only list a few.
First, when "God dies" in a society, man becomes a god. But fallen gods always fall. And when they fall, they take many with them. The results are devastating. This is a case in point.
Second, I'd like to point out the irony. Whether the bioethicists call this murder or not does not change the fact that it IS murder. Truth is objective and not subject to the whims of rebels. Replacing people who have natural disabilities with those with moral disabilities (like murder) does not make a more perfect society - quite the contrary!
Third, this is all built upon a presupposition that abortion is "one-issue" or an isolated position. When a people and its government condone the murder of innocent life, we can't act as if this does not affect other moral areas. Murder is the hight of human rebellion. It is a direct and active assault against God. We may not murder His image and act as if we do not want Him dead as well. This affects all areas of life and morality. If allowed to continue, I fear we have not seen the worst.
Fourth, how arrogant is a people who believe that they are without disabilities themselves, and that those with disabilities have nothing positive to offer humanity! The person who has perhaps brought the most change to my life is a blind man. Plus, every parent I know who has a child with down syndrome has said their child has proven to be a huge blessing to them and those around them.
Fifth, I wonder what percentage of the criminal population has down syndrome. I have never seen a serial killer or an inmate with the disability. If this is really about making a perfect society, then we need to kill a lot more people. How about all people. Being perfect is being sinless. We are all sinners. It's as simple as that. We should all die. This leads me to the next point.
Sixth, the philosophical leap from this method of creating a perfect society to Nazi Germany's method is not a long one. As soon as these atheistic bioethicists become consistent in their thinking, and figure out that the ontological difference between life inside of the womb is no different from life outside of the womb, those who are born with any disability whatsoever are "fair game." Might soon makes right. And the strong soon destroy the weak.
Last, judgment will come upon all who take innocent life - especially, innocent life with disabilities. May the Lord grant mercy to the Danes. May He grant mercy to us all. And may repentance come quickly. For when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, He will not come on a Cross, but with a sword. And His robe will quickly become drenched in the blood of His enemies.
Lord help us. Come Lord Jesus.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Must We Always Tell the Truth?
This is a question that commonly creates the cartoonish cloud with a question mark overhead. The reflex answer is almost always, "Yes. The Bible says that we should not lie." But the answer is more complex than this. In the Scriptures we read stories where it seems that lying was the right thing to do.
Take Rahab for example (Josh 2:4-6; 6:17, 25; Heb 11:31; James 2:25). Not only did she hide the spies (which is a deceptive act), she lied to her own countrymen. These acts, by the prostitute, were conducted by faith and thus accounted to her as righteousness.
We could also rewind history and consider the Egyptian midwives, who lied to the authorities concerning the Israelite newborns (Exod 1). Because of their actions, the Scriptures tell us that God dealt well with them (1:20). There are other passages that we could examine, but time does not permit.
So, how do we reconcile these things? Does the Bible contradict itself?
No. The Bible does not contradict itself. The answer, however, demands a closer look. We must see what the Scripture specifically has to say about truth telling.
Many people shorten the ninth commandment to "You shall not lie." But this is not what the commandment actually says. Exodus 20:16 states, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." The difference is significant.
In bearing false witness against a neighbor, a person withholds the truth in order to selfishly gain an upper hand over the one he is obligated to help (i.e., his neighbor; cf. Lk 10). Frame states, "The sin of false witness is that of distorting the facts in such a way as to harm one's neighbor." It is relational in nature. The motive is not one of love but selfishness.
Lying, then, must be defined with greater precision. Given a few examples, it is obvious that we do this without explicitly saying so. A lie is not simply an untrue statement. At night, I commonly tell my little boy a bedtime story. Rarely are they true, but hardly would anyone call them a lie.
Parables are not lies even though they may describe events that did not actually happen. Similarly in game playing, deceiving one's opponent is often considered good strategy. But I have never heard an announcer describe a quarterback's pump fake as a lie. And rightly so.
To be more precise, a lie is a word or act that intentionally deceives a neighbor in order to hurt him (Frame's definition). It is an action which is against someone you should be helping.
So, should we always tell the truth? I, along with many orthodox Christians, say no. If a person comes to my house in order to harm my family, that person has forfeited his right to the truth. In order to obey the sixth commandment, I would lie. A person has no right to the truth, if their purpose is to use the truth in order to take innocent life.
Take Rahab for example (Josh 2:4-6; 6:17, 25; Heb 11:31; James 2:25). Not only did she hide the spies (which is a deceptive act), she lied to her own countrymen. These acts, by the prostitute, were conducted by faith and thus accounted to her as righteousness.
We could also rewind history and consider the Egyptian midwives, who lied to the authorities concerning the Israelite newborns (Exod 1). Because of their actions, the Scriptures tell us that God dealt well with them (1:20). There are other passages that we could examine, but time does not permit.
So, how do we reconcile these things? Does the Bible contradict itself?
No. The Bible does not contradict itself. The answer, however, demands a closer look. We must see what the Scripture specifically has to say about truth telling.
Many people shorten the ninth commandment to "You shall not lie." But this is not what the commandment actually says. Exodus 20:16 states, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." The difference is significant.
In bearing false witness against a neighbor, a person withholds the truth in order to selfishly gain an upper hand over the one he is obligated to help (i.e., his neighbor; cf. Lk 10). Frame states, "The sin of false witness is that of distorting the facts in such a way as to harm one's neighbor." It is relational in nature. The motive is not one of love but selfishness.
Lying, then, must be defined with greater precision. Given a few examples, it is obvious that we do this without explicitly saying so. A lie is not simply an untrue statement. At night, I commonly tell my little boy a bedtime story. Rarely are they true, but hardly would anyone call them a lie.
Parables are not lies even though they may describe events that did not actually happen. Similarly in game playing, deceiving one's opponent is often considered good strategy. But I have never heard an announcer describe a quarterback's pump fake as a lie. And rightly so.
To be more precise, a lie is a word or act that intentionally deceives a neighbor in order to hurt him (Frame's definition). It is an action which is against someone you should be helping.
So, should we always tell the truth? I, along with many orthodox Christians, say no. If a person comes to my house in order to harm my family, that person has forfeited his right to the truth. In order to obey the sixth commandment, I would lie. A person has no right to the truth, if their purpose is to use the truth in order to take innocent life.
Friday, August 19, 2011
For All You Singles Out There...
The satisfaction that comes from knowing another individual so intimately that it would be right to call the two, one, is almost incomparable. Being vitally committed to someone under the warm blanket of Biblical authority is quite possibly the height of human experience. And rightly so. It is quite possibly the most satisfying shadow that gives us the greatest glimpse of our union with Jesus Christ.
But what about those who are single? What about the people who continually struggle with the fact that their biological clock is ticking - alone. What can we say to them? How does singleness fit into the Christian life where marriage is so important and satisfying? Here are a few thoughts.
First, the Bible tells us that God's grace is sufficient for you (2 Cor 12). Just as He is the supplier of all good things for those who are married, He is for those who are single. If you are single, you can trust Him. He is with you. He knows your situation and is in control.
Second, know that your loneliness is a spiritual craving and not merely a physical one. Simply put, don't waste your loneliness, but rather use those times to seek after the One who is ultimately satisfying. This is more easily said than done, I understand. However, take the first diligent step in faith. He will reward you (Heb 11:6). His rewards are greater than marriage.
Third, understand that marriage is a shadow and not the Substance (Col 2:17). One day marriage will be no more. Our hope in glory will be realized (Col 1:27). I, along with others, get a little disappointed when thinking that marriage (and sex!) will not exist in heaven. But our view of heaven is too small. Heaven's pleasures and joys will so far surpass those of marriage, that they will not even be desired.
Fourth, take advantage of your freedom. I love being married and all; but, I must say that asking permission for everything is something that I could do without (not because my wife is authoritative, but simply because if I want to leave the house, I am asking her to babysit three kids alone!). So, don't waste your singleness. Read like crazy! Serve married couples (with babysitting :) like crazy! Love like crazy!
Finally, obedience in faith, whether single or married, is the most joyful way. Don't settle. Don't fall into sexual sin. It's not worth it. Labor to be around other godly people - married and single. Try and limit your time alone. Do whatever it takes to fight sin in your life. Move to a place where people bombard you and annoy the heck out of you. You will only have to do it for a short time. Heaven is soon approaching. And, you never know, marriage may be just around the corner.
This post is for all of the singles I know that continue to bless my socks off by their love, service, and example. Your struggle to remain sold out for Christ, in a culture where singleness is so difficult, inspires me. Thank you.
This video is really good too!
But what about those who are single? What about the people who continually struggle with the fact that their biological clock is ticking - alone. What can we say to them? How does singleness fit into the Christian life where marriage is so important and satisfying? Here are a few thoughts.
First, the Bible tells us that God's grace is sufficient for you (2 Cor 12). Just as He is the supplier of all good things for those who are married, He is for those who are single. If you are single, you can trust Him. He is with you. He knows your situation and is in control.
Second, know that your loneliness is a spiritual craving and not merely a physical one. Simply put, don't waste your loneliness, but rather use those times to seek after the One who is ultimately satisfying. This is more easily said than done, I understand. However, take the first diligent step in faith. He will reward you (Heb 11:6). His rewards are greater than marriage.
Third, understand that marriage is a shadow and not the Substance (Col 2:17). One day marriage will be no more. Our hope in glory will be realized (Col 1:27). I, along with others, get a little disappointed when thinking that marriage (and sex!) will not exist in heaven. But our view of heaven is too small. Heaven's pleasures and joys will so far surpass those of marriage, that they will not even be desired.
Fourth, take advantage of your freedom. I love being married and all; but, I must say that asking permission for everything is something that I could do without (not because my wife is authoritative, but simply because if I want to leave the house, I am asking her to babysit three kids alone!). So, don't waste your singleness. Read like crazy! Serve married couples (with babysitting :) like crazy! Love like crazy!
Finally, obedience in faith, whether single or married, is the most joyful way. Don't settle. Don't fall into sexual sin. It's not worth it. Labor to be around other godly people - married and single. Try and limit your time alone. Do whatever it takes to fight sin in your life. Move to a place where people bombard you and annoy the heck out of you. You will only have to do it for a short time. Heaven is soon approaching. And, you never know, marriage may be just around the corner.
This post is for all of the singles I know that continue to bless my socks off by their love, service, and example. Your struggle to remain sold out for Christ, in a culture where singleness is so difficult, inspires me. Thank you.
This video is really good too!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Addressing the Problem of Evil
Many people have wrestled with what is commonly called "the problem of evil." The logical syllogism behind the argument goes something like this:
1. If God is all-powerful, He is able to prevent evil
2. If God is good, He wants to prevent evil.
3. But evil exists.
Conclusion: either God is not all-powerful, or He is not good.
Christian orthodoxy affirms both the omniscience of God and the goodness of God. Consequently, the conclusion above has been the chief weapon used in the battle against Christian theism.
In working through The Doctrine of God
, I am now on the chapter that addresses the problem. I am personally satisfied with Frame's address, as well as his critiques of various unbibilical attempts to solve the problem. While I cannot give a complete summary of the chapter I can give a few points to whet the appetite.
Frame begins by identifying the difference between natural and moral evil. Natural evil is that which brings suffering, unpleasantness, or difficulty into the lives of creatures. Moral evil is the sin of rational creatures. The answer to the problem of natural evil is relatively clear in Scripture (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8). The answer to moral evil, on the other hand, demands more attention. And this is where Frame spends most of his time.
The defense that best answers the problem of moral evil (while it may not sufficiently answer all questions) is the greater-good defense. The verse that captures this best is Rom 8:28, "in all things God works for the good of those who love Him." Frame comments, "It is essential to realize that even though God does bring evil into the world, He does it for a good reason. Therefore, He does not do evil in bringing evil to pass."
There are many safeguards that he puts in place to keep the reader from running off of the "Scriptural cliff." I will list only a few. He says that good should be defined as that which brings most glory to God, and not what brings the most comfort (or whatever) to us. Second, God's standards should be used to govern our concept of goodness. We cannot just pull "goodness" out of the subjective air.
The last one I will mention is that we must evaluate God's actions over the full extent of human history, and with eternity in view. In a million years of glory, we will look back on the relatively short time of "evil" and see with greater vision how the evils brought about the greater good.
We must always confess that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so He is holy and blameless. The analogy that Frame gives that helps the mind to capture this is that of an author and a story. Shakespeare wrote the murder of Duncan into his play, but Macbeth is the one who is to blame. While the analogy stops short in some ways, it does provide a way of seeing that God is not to be blamed for the sin of His creatures.
Finally, we must never forget that God ordained the most evil event in history - the Cross of Christ. We must also never forget that this ordination brought about the greatest good - our salvation.
1. If God is all-powerful, He is able to prevent evil
2. If God is good, He wants to prevent evil.
3. But evil exists.
Conclusion: either God is not all-powerful, or He is not good.
Christian orthodoxy affirms both the omniscience of God and the goodness of God. Consequently, the conclusion above has been the chief weapon used in the battle against Christian theism.
In working through The Doctrine of God
, I am now on the chapter that addresses the problem. I am personally satisfied with Frame's address, as well as his critiques of various unbibilical attempts to solve the problem. While I cannot give a complete summary of the chapter I can give a few points to whet the appetite. Frame begins by identifying the difference between natural and moral evil. Natural evil is that which brings suffering, unpleasantness, or difficulty into the lives of creatures. Moral evil is the sin of rational creatures. The answer to the problem of natural evil is relatively clear in Scripture (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8). The answer to moral evil, on the other hand, demands more attention. And this is where Frame spends most of his time.
The defense that best answers the problem of moral evil (while it may not sufficiently answer all questions) is the greater-good defense. The verse that captures this best is Rom 8:28, "in all things God works for the good of those who love Him." Frame comments, "It is essential to realize that even though God does bring evil into the world, He does it for a good reason. Therefore, He does not do evil in bringing evil to pass."
There are many safeguards that he puts in place to keep the reader from running off of the "Scriptural cliff." I will list only a few. He says that good should be defined as that which brings most glory to God, and not what brings the most comfort (or whatever) to us. Second, God's standards should be used to govern our concept of goodness. We cannot just pull "goodness" out of the subjective air.
The last one I will mention is that we must evaluate God's actions over the full extent of human history, and with eternity in view. In a million years of glory, we will look back on the relatively short time of "evil" and see with greater vision how the evils brought about the greater good.
We must always confess that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so He is holy and blameless. The analogy that Frame gives that helps the mind to capture this is that of an author and a story. Shakespeare wrote the murder of Duncan into his play, but Macbeth is the one who is to blame. While the analogy stops short in some ways, it does provide a way of seeing that God is not to be blamed for the sin of His creatures.
Finally, we must never forget that God ordained the most evil event in history - the Cross of Christ. We must also never forget that this ordination brought about the greatest good - our salvation.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Fast, Easy, and Cheap - The Words That Feed Our Struggle With Food.
I had always known how difficult the struggle with lust could be. In my mind, it was incomparable to any other. The flood of images in our over-sexualized culture makes a life without war almost impossible. Recently, however, have I come to understand a struggle that, in many ways, is more difficult than the struggle with lust. It is the struggle with food.
In a culture where adjectives like fast, easy, and cheap describe most of the food we eat, it is no wonder why so many live in constant fear of being blindsided with the irresistible temptation that lingers at every major intersection in the country. And it is so much easier to indulge. No one ostracizes you if you walk by with a double cheeseburger like they would if you were to walk by with a Playboy.
I'm not saying that eating a double cheeseburger is wrong. I am saying that there are many people who struggle (myself included) with eating a DCB unto the glory of God.
Because of the fall, the food that provides the nourishment our bodies need is difficult to harvest, purchase, and prepare. Maintaining our health therefore takes patience, self-control and discipline, as well as a large portion of our time and income. Fast, easy and cheap are the buzzwords that promise to alleviate the consequences of our fallenness. In the end, they do not provide - our lives become slower, more difficult and more costly.
But there is hope in Christ. Watch, as this struggling Christian gives his testimony and admonition.
In a culture where adjectives like fast, easy, and cheap describe most of the food we eat, it is no wonder why so many live in constant fear of being blindsided with the irresistible temptation that lingers at every major intersection in the country. And it is so much easier to indulge. No one ostracizes you if you walk by with a double cheeseburger like they would if you were to walk by with a Playboy.
I'm not saying that eating a double cheeseburger is wrong. I am saying that there are many people who struggle (myself included) with eating a DCB unto the glory of God.
Because of the fall, the food that provides the nourishment our bodies need is difficult to harvest, purchase, and prepare. Maintaining our health therefore takes patience, self-control and discipline, as well as a large portion of our time and income. Fast, easy and cheap are the buzzwords that promise to alleviate the consequences of our fallenness. In the end, they do not provide - our lives become slower, more difficult and more costly.
But there is hope in Christ. Watch, as this struggling Christian gives his testimony and admonition.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What Exactly Are We Saved From?
I remember some time back, I asked the question during a Bible study, "What exactly are we being saved from?" As the answers began, it was clear that people understood that salvation was necessary. But it was also clear that they had very little understanding about what or who we must be saved from. Most thought we needed to be saved from the devil. Others thought we needed to be saved from sin, hell, and/or ourselves.
As I work through the book of Amos, it is almost impossible to walk away without seriously considering the question at hand. It is equally impossible to walk away without at least being encountered by the biblical answer.
In a culture where hate is categorized as a four-letter-word, we can expect that the culture's god could never be accused of having such an emotion. But the God of the Bible (Yahweh) is wholly "other" than the culture's god. He hates sin (Amos 5:21; 6:8). And He is loving in doing so. His faithful judgment is both glorious and terrible. It is inescapable and complete. No one can run or hide. No one can pay Him off.
The answer from Scripture is clear:
Sinners must be saved from the Lord. We must be saved from the wrath of God.
A quote from Leon Morris provides us with a fuller understanding:
A good deal depends upon our conception of the place and nature of the wrath of God. If this is regarded as a very real factor so that the sinner is exposed to its severity, then the removal of the wrath will be an important part of our understanding of salvation; whereas if we diminish the part played by the divine wrath we shall not find it necessary to think seriously of propitiation.
We think little of judgment because we think little of sin (until someone sins against us!). But when we think little of judgment, we cannot possibly think much of the One who absorbs (propitiates) the judgment of God - Jesus Christ. Consequently, athletes are worshiped more than Christ.
However, when we understand how great our sin really is, then we begin to understand how great the judgment we deserve really is. And when we understand the glory of this judgment, then we finally understand the glory of the Lamb of God, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
For more information about this subject you can get:
Saved From What?
by Sproul
Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
by Morris
Morris's quote from CB.
As I work through the book of Amos, it is almost impossible to walk away without seriously considering the question at hand. It is equally impossible to walk away without at least being encountered by the biblical answer.
In a culture where hate is categorized as a four-letter-word, we can expect that the culture's god could never be accused of having such an emotion. But the God of the Bible (Yahweh) is wholly "other" than the culture's god. He hates sin (Amos 5:21; 6:8). And He is loving in doing so. His faithful judgment is both glorious and terrible. It is inescapable and complete. No one can run or hide. No one can pay Him off.
The answer from Scripture is clear:
Sinners must be saved from the Lord. We must be saved from the wrath of God.
A quote from Leon Morris provides us with a fuller understanding:
A good deal depends upon our conception of the place and nature of the wrath of God. If this is regarded as a very real factor so that the sinner is exposed to its severity, then the removal of the wrath will be an important part of our understanding of salvation; whereas if we diminish the part played by the divine wrath we shall not find it necessary to think seriously of propitiation.
We think little of judgment because we think little of sin (until someone sins against us!). But when we think little of judgment, we cannot possibly think much of the One who absorbs (propitiates) the judgment of God - Jesus Christ. Consequently, athletes are worshiped more than Christ.
However, when we understand how great our sin really is, then we begin to understand how great the judgment we deserve really is. And when we understand the glory of this judgment, then we finally understand the glory of the Lamb of God, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
For more information about this subject you can get:
Saved From What?
by SproulApostolic Preaching of the Cross
by MorrisMorris's quote from CB.
Friday, August 12, 2011
A Little Embarrassing, But So Good!
Ok. So this used to be my favorite song. I've gotta admit, I still love it.
Richard Marx's hair is second only to Michael Bolton...which leads me to an even more embarrassing truth...Yes, I used to love this next song too. Don't hate, you did too. While listening to it, just imagine this tall white guy, eyes closed, fist pumping as he sings, "Said I loved you but I lied..."
Enjoy!
Richard Marx's hair is second only to Michael Bolton...which leads me to an even more embarrassing truth...Yes, I used to love this next song too. Don't hate, you did too. While listening to it, just imagine this tall white guy, eyes closed, fist pumping as he sings, "Said I loved you but I lied..."
Enjoy!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Desire For Inconsistency In Atheism
Modern day conversations with atheists typically linger around the area of epistemology (the study of knowledge). But it has been my experience that the conversation commonly takes a turn into the realm of ethics (the study of what people "ought" and "ought not" do). If naturalistic atheism is weak in epistemology, it fails miserably when it comes to ethics. Why?
It is impossible to derive ethical rules from nature itself. This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something "is," it does not follow that it "ought."
If naturalistic atheists were consistent, and saw the fallacy clearly, then they would have to conclude that there is no such thing as ethics. They can only observe the world and say that murder happens. They can never observe the world and say (consistently) that murder ought not to happen. In their worldview, a man murderously "playing" with a child is just as natural as a killer whale murderously "playing" with a sea lion.
These types of things happen in nature. The atheist has no basis for saying that they ought or ought not to happen.
Now, when these conclusions are drawn, some will take offense and say things like, "I may be an atheist, but I'm not a bad person - I don't like murder." To this our response should be something to the effect of, "Yes, it's because you are inconsistent. And it is my prayer that while you are an atheist, you remain inconsistent."
This post may sound a bit arrogant, as if the Christian is the good guy and the atheist is the bad guy. I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is that the atheistic worldview is absolutely dangerous. People who say that they are Christians may commit murder; but, their sinful action would be highly inconsistent with their professed worldview. However, when an atheist commits murder, we may not say that they were being inconsistent with their own worldview.
These types of things happen in nature. The atheist has no basis for saying that they ought or ought not to happen.
Now, when these conclusions are drawn, some will take offense and say things like, "I may be an atheist, but I'm not a bad person - I don't like murder." To this our response should be something to the effect of, "Yes, it's because you are inconsistent. And it is my prayer that while you are an atheist, you remain inconsistent."
This post may sound a bit arrogant, as if the Christian is the good guy and the atheist is the bad guy. I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is that the atheistic worldview is absolutely dangerous. People who say that they are Christians may commit murder; but, their sinful action would be highly inconsistent with their professed worldview. However, when an atheist commits murder, we may not say that they were being inconsistent with their own worldview.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
We Need Christ, Not China - My Thoughts On Our Current Debt "Crisis"
Imagine you are a banker. Mr. and Mrs. America owe you a large sum of money. Mr. America comes to your office to inform you that they don't presently have the money to pay what they owe. You ask where Mrs. America is and soon find out that she has moved back to her mother's house. Things aren't going so well in the America house. They don't have enough money, and they don't have the ability to dwell peacefully in the same household with one another.
But they have a plan to pay you. Mr. America informs you that there is another bank that he has talked to that is willing to loan them the money to pay you. All he has to do is get Mrs. America to agree to sign the paperwork. Hmmm. Red flags go up in your head (as they should!)
You begin to think. "So they are borrowing money to pay me. That's not good." And, "They don't even like each other right now. How is he going to get her to agree to that? That ain't good either." Whether you like it or not, Mr. and Mrs. America were just downgraded in your book. You are more worried about their ability to pay you than you were before.
I understand that analogies fall short at some point. This one may very well fall short completely. But it makes sense. Reflecting on our nation's recent credit downgrade and our government's response to it, I'd like to mention four brief thoughts.
Reality. If any individual were to conduct their finances in this manner, they would receive a downgrade on their credit report. Raising a "debt ceiling" will cause anyone's score to go down. Credibility is not merely about if we have paid our debts. Other factors, like ratios, inquiries and so on, inform lenders of the borrower's ability to pay in the future. The reality of the situation is that we deserve a downgrade.
Repercussions. If a child doesn't study for a test and performs poorly, he deserves a bad grade. A responsible parent will use this repercussion as an opportunity for repentance and reform. Repercussions are opportunities. An irresponsible parent, however, will blame the teacher for giving a overly difficult test or will blame the child's inability to concentrate. These excuses simply invalidate the repercussions. And repercussions that are merely pushed into the future only grow in size.
Responsibility. People who take no responsibility for their actions hardly gain the trust of those around them. Mr. Obama as well as other government officials may not be personally guilty for the downgrade. But the President as well as the officials (and the people!) are responsible. Blame-shifting has to stop. The reality of the situation, as well as the repercussions that have followed, are our responsibility.
Repentance. Therefore, we must repent. Using debt to pay obligations is not a responsible or repentant way for a household to operate. When we do not repent of our sinful behavior, we communicate that it is a right way to do things. We teach others that when we sin we should deny the reality of the situation and take no responsibility for our actions. Others should repent, and until that happens, we will just borrow money to delay the repercussions.
This reality does not all begin from the top and work its way down. It begins with the family unit and rises to the top. As families in America our tendency, when we selfishly overspend, is to deny the reality of the situation - that our selfishness has resulted in our inability to provide groceries. We don't want to accept responsibility for the repercussion, so we blame others saying, "Its not our fault our pantry is empty. Our jobs aren't paying enough and taxes are too high!"
Because it is someone else's fault, we don't feel the need to repent of our sinful behavior. We are innocent victims of a debt crisis in our country. And so the cycle goes...until we hit bottom. Bankruptcy.
Instead of entering this vicious cycle, we should accept the reality that we are in trouble. Our selfish lifestyles have brought repercussions to our front door. We should accept responsibility for these things and repent. When our pantries are empty, we must go to the Lord in prayer and repentance. Then we must resist the temptation to swipe the credit card, and go to our brother or sister in Christ and as ask for food.
I have said it before and I will say it again. We cannot borrow enough money to purchase our redemption. Repercussions are painful and are designed to bring us to our knees in prayer. Repentance and faith alone will do. For in these humble actions, Someone Else suffers the penalty we are due. And that same Someone Else purchases our freedom to live fulfilled lives. His Name is Jesus Christ, not China.
But they have a plan to pay you. Mr. America informs you that there is another bank that he has talked to that is willing to loan them the money to pay you. All he has to do is get Mrs. America to agree to sign the paperwork. Hmmm. Red flags go up in your head (as they should!)
You begin to think. "So they are borrowing money to pay me. That's not good." And, "They don't even like each other right now. How is he going to get her to agree to that? That ain't good either." Whether you like it or not, Mr. and Mrs. America were just downgraded in your book. You are more worried about their ability to pay you than you were before.
I understand that analogies fall short at some point. This one may very well fall short completely. But it makes sense. Reflecting on our nation's recent credit downgrade and our government's response to it, I'd like to mention four brief thoughts.
Reality. If any individual were to conduct their finances in this manner, they would receive a downgrade on their credit report. Raising a "debt ceiling" will cause anyone's score to go down. Credibility is not merely about if we have paid our debts. Other factors, like ratios, inquiries and so on, inform lenders of the borrower's ability to pay in the future. The reality of the situation is that we deserve a downgrade.
Repercussions. If a child doesn't study for a test and performs poorly, he deserves a bad grade. A responsible parent will use this repercussion as an opportunity for repentance and reform. Repercussions are opportunities. An irresponsible parent, however, will blame the teacher for giving a overly difficult test or will blame the child's inability to concentrate. These excuses simply invalidate the repercussions. And repercussions that are merely pushed into the future only grow in size.
Responsibility. People who take no responsibility for their actions hardly gain the trust of those around them. Mr. Obama as well as other government officials may not be personally guilty for the downgrade. But the President as well as the officials (and the people!) are responsible. Blame-shifting has to stop. The reality of the situation, as well as the repercussions that have followed, are our responsibility.
Repentance. Therefore, we must repent. Using debt to pay obligations is not a responsible or repentant way for a household to operate. When we do not repent of our sinful behavior, we communicate that it is a right way to do things. We teach others that when we sin we should deny the reality of the situation and take no responsibility for our actions. Others should repent, and until that happens, we will just borrow money to delay the repercussions.
This reality does not all begin from the top and work its way down. It begins with the family unit and rises to the top. As families in America our tendency, when we selfishly overspend, is to deny the reality of the situation - that our selfishness has resulted in our inability to provide groceries. We don't want to accept responsibility for the repercussion, so we blame others saying, "Its not our fault our pantry is empty. Our jobs aren't paying enough and taxes are too high!"
Because it is someone else's fault, we don't feel the need to repent of our sinful behavior. We are innocent victims of a debt crisis in our country. And so the cycle goes...until we hit bottom. Bankruptcy.
Instead of entering this vicious cycle, we should accept the reality that we are in trouble. Our selfish lifestyles have brought repercussions to our front door. We should accept responsibility for these things and repent. When our pantries are empty, we must go to the Lord in prayer and repentance. Then we must resist the temptation to swipe the credit card, and go to our brother or sister in Christ and as ask for food.
I have said it before and I will say it again. We cannot borrow enough money to purchase our redemption. Repercussions are painful and are designed to bring us to our knees in prayer. Repentance and faith alone will do. For in these humble actions, Someone Else suffers the penalty we are due. And that same Someone Else purchases our freedom to live fulfilled lives. His Name is Jesus Christ, not China.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Limits of Logic
It is not uncommon for both the Christian and the non-Christian to exalt the creature above the Creator. Because of sin, the human heart strives for this on a daily basis. That's why we need the Gospel every day. We must be constantly reminded that we are the creature and the Lord alone is the Creator.
Human use of logic is a prime example. Tragically, many place God under the lordship and authority of logic. To use Augustinian language, many feel that they must understand before they believe, when the reality is that they must believe before they can understand.
The goal of this post is to help demote logic to its rightful "created" place. I hope to do this by identifying a few of its limitations - a few of its creaturely attributes.
First, logic is not the ultimate presupposition necessary to rationally conclude theism or atheism. Logic must use and presuppose things like order, objectivity, consistency, and laws in order to be faithfully conducted. Therefore, God, the source of all order, objectivity, self-consistent being and personality, is the ultimate presupposition necessary to conduct rational and logical thought.
Second, because logic depends upon objective reality, it cannot determine reality, but can only help identify it. Van Til states, God existed as the self-conscious and self-consistent being. The law of contradiction, therefore, as we know it, is but the expression on a created level of the internal coherence of God's nature. Christians should therefore never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true.
Third, logic is a part of creation and thus cannot act as the standard for judging all of reality. It is limited by human reason as well as God's intention. Being a fallen creature, our logic can only accomplish so much. And because God has given us logic, we must not use it autonomously. Our reason is safely held in check by the Lord's authority, control and presence.
Fourth, logic is a gracious gift from God. Van Til continues, "The gift of logical reason was given by God to man in order that he might order the revelation of God for himself." Logic is a critical tool to enable man to have dominion over what God has given him. Without logic we could not know, process, love, communicate or worship. Logic is a grounds for gratitude, not the object of it.
Finally, logic must be kept in check by Scripture. The Lord has not revealed everything to man, but He has revealed some. When we make deductions about God and reality beyond what Scripture reveals, we enter into a realm of madness. Scripture lovingly, but sternly, lets us know when our reasoning has stepped out of bounds. It lets us know when we have become irrational in our reasoning.
Without a doubt, more can be said on this matter. The central point that we must see is that logic has its limits. Identifying them is essential to right worship and joyful experience. Instead of worshiping logic, may we all use it to bring a faithful witness of the truth of God.
Human use of logic is a prime example. Tragically, many place God under the lordship and authority of logic. To use Augustinian language, many feel that they must understand before they believe, when the reality is that they must believe before they can understand.
The goal of this post is to help demote logic to its rightful "created" place. I hope to do this by identifying a few of its limitations - a few of its creaturely attributes.
First, logic is not the ultimate presupposition necessary to rationally conclude theism or atheism. Logic must use and presuppose things like order, objectivity, consistency, and laws in order to be faithfully conducted. Therefore, God, the source of all order, objectivity, self-consistent being and personality, is the ultimate presupposition necessary to conduct rational and logical thought.
Second, because logic depends upon objective reality, it cannot determine reality, but can only help identify it. Van Til states, God existed as the self-conscious and self-consistent being. The law of contradiction, therefore, as we know it, is but the expression on a created level of the internal coherence of God's nature. Christians should therefore never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true.
Third, logic is a part of creation and thus cannot act as the standard for judging all of reality. It is limited by human reason as well as God's intention. Being a fallen creature, our logic can only accomplish so much. And because God has given us logic, we must not use it autonomously. Our reason is safely held in check by the Lord's authority, control and presence.
Fourth, logic is a gracious gift from God. Van Til continues, "The gift of logical reason was given by God to man in order that he might order the revelation of God for himself." Logic is a critical tool to enable man to have dominion over what God has given him. Without logic we could not know, process, love, communicate or worship. Logic is a grounds for gratitude, not the object of it.
Finally, logic must be kept in check by Scripture. The Lord has not revealed everything to man, but He has revealed some. When we make deductions about God and reality beyond what Scripture reveals, we enter into a realm of madness. Scripture lovingly, but sternly, lets us know when our reasoning has stepped out of bounds. It lets us know when we have become irrational in our reasoning.
Without a doubt, more can be said on this matter. The central point that we must see is that logic has its limits. Identifying them is essential to right worship and joyful experience. Instead of worshiping logic, may we all use it to bring a faithful witness of the truth of God.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Free Kindle Book - Ten Questions to Diagnose Your Spiritual Health by Donald Whitney
I have not read this book, but it comes recommended by a good friend of mine. The author, Donald S. Whitney, is out of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can read a description of the book here.
You can download the book in Kindle format here.
You gotta love free godly resources!
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Free Music - The Holy Culture Drop Project. GET IT!
Over the past year, it has been an honor to write a few articles for Holy Culture. The folks that labor behind the scenes of this ministry are single minded. They want Christ proclaimed. And they are willing to spend their time and resources to get it to the masses for little to no cost at all.The Drop Project is a great example of this. Download it for free here.
After you download it, send it to your friends. It will be a blessing to you and to others as well. You all know I'm a fan of good Christian Hip Hop - this is worthy of your time. Enjoy!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
When Moral Beauty Begins to Bore Us
Knowing the difference between a symptom and a sickness is critical in the Christian life. If I were a doctor and you came to me sneezing, it would be irresponsible for me to address only the sneezing. A responsible doctor would look past the sneeze to the flu. He would care less about the symptom and more about the sickness.
Unfortunately, in our church culture we are typically more concerned with people's symptoms rather than their sickness. The reason is not difficult to identify. We don't like people sneezing on us! So we resort to doing that which makes our lives more sanitary, in the quickest way possible. We say, "Stop sneezing. And go over there (away from me) until the medicine takes effect."
But Christ touched lepers (Matt 8:3). It's about as simple and profound as that.
When we ourselves, or someone we know becomes angry, immoral, jealous, envious or addicted (cf. Gal 5:19) we must interpret these behaviors rightly and responsibly. These are merely symptoms, like sores on a leper, of a horrible disease - spiritual leprosy. The sores aren't the problem, although they really affect us and others in meaningful ways. Leprosy is the issue, and it demands Christian touch.
Simply put, it's worth getting leprosy to get the leper to heaven. In other words, our life is worth losing if it means another person gains it. Isn't this what the Apostle taught? "So death is at work in us, but life in you" (2 Cor 4).
We must not be religious hypocrites that give superficial advise, addressing only the symptoms. Teaching that sinners must not behave sinfully around an "obviously sinless" people. This is no gospel at all. For the gospel-centered Christian, sin is an opportunity to love - to confront the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit.
Hear Cornelius Plantinga Jr. in his work, Not the Way It's Supposed to Be
:
Self-deception about our sin is a narcotic, a tranquilizing and disorienting suppression of our spiritual nervous system. What's devastating about it is that when we lack an ear for wrong notes in our lives, we cannot play right ones or even recognize them in the performances of others. Eventually we make ourselves religiously so unmusical that we miss both the exposition and the recapitulation of the main themes God plays in human life. The music of creation and the still greater music of grace whistle right through our skulls, causing no catch of breath and leaving no residue. Moral beauty begins to bore us. The idea that the human race needs a Savior sounds quaint.
It doesn't do anyone any good to send the lepers out of the very place that should provide healing. If we were consistent with sending them out, then our churches would be empty. We'd have to go too.
Unfortunately, in our church culture we are typically more concerned with people's symptoms rather than their sickness. The reason is not difficult to identify. We don't like people sneezing on us! So we resort to doing that which makes our lives more sanitary, in the quickest way possible. We say, "Stop sneezing. And go over there (away from me) until the medicine takes effect."
But Christ touched lepers (Matt 8:3). It's about as simple and profound as that.
When we ourselves, or someone we know becomes angry, immoral, jealous, envious or addicted (cf. Gal 5:19) we must interpret these behaviors rightly and responsibly. These are merely symptoms, like sores on a leper, of a horrible disease - spiritual leprosy. The sores aren't the problem, although they really affect us and others in meaningful ways. Leprosy is the issue, and it demands Christian touch.
Simply put, it's worth getting leprosy to get the leper to heaven. In other words, our life is worth losing if it means another person gains it. Isn't this what the Apostle taught? "So death is at work in us, but life in you" (2 Cor 4).
We must not be religious hypocrites that give superficial advise, addressing only the symptoms. Teaching that sinners must not behave sinfully around an "obviously sinless" people. This is no gospel at all. For the gospel-centered Christian, sin is an opportunity to love - to confront the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit.
Hear Cornelius Plantinga Jr. in his work, Not the Way It's Supposed to Be
:Self-deception about our sin is a narcotic, a tranquilizing and disorienting suppression of our spiritual nervous system. What's devastating about it is that when we lack an ear for wrong notes in our lives, we cannot play right ones or even recognize them in the performances of others. Eventually we make ourselves religiously so unmusical that we miss both the exposition and the recapitulation of the main themes God plays in human life. The music of creation and the still greater music of grace whistle right through our skulls, causing no catch of breath and leaving no residue. Moral beauty begins to bore us. The idea that the human race needs a Savior sounds quaint.
It doesn't do anyone any good to send the lepers out of the very place that should provide healing. If we were consistent with sending them out, then our churches would be empty. We'd have to go too.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Friendships May End, But Not Forever
It's not an uncommon occurrence or the Apostle Paul to tell his friends that he hopes to see them soon (cf. 1 Tim 3:14). Those he once murdered (Acts 7-8), he now dies for. Being either imprisoned or on mission, the Apostle is constantly expressing his earnest desire for fellowship. He just wants his friends to be around.
The more I think about this, the more I am made aware of how I long for the same. I want to be with loved ones without having to worry about them leaving. But it never fails does it? It seems that the enjoyment is always frustrated by separation. They may be with us now, but the clock is ticking. Geography will soon be placed in between us. Death will soon take one of us away.
I don't know my family like I once did. The miles that separate us have taken their tole. Remembering my childhood has become both a source of great joy and great sorrow. I want that closeness back; but reaching back to get it is impossible. I eagerly look forward to holidays, but at the same time, I dread their end.
I am also frequently frustrated that my time at seminary was so short. Some of the friendships I built there are more valuable to me than any other. I remember the classrooms and study sessions. I remember the town homes and children. I remember being rescued from sin. And I remember laughing till it hurt. I will never be the same. I will always long to be in their company. In a very real way, it hurts to live in another state.
It shouldn't have to be this way. Something is terribly wrong. Even the greatest parts of life are under inevitable attack. All good things must end. There's just no getting around it. Some of my best friends will probably always live in another state. I will more than likely attend my mother and father's funeral. My children will probably attend, with great sorrow, mine. These are the realities that we live with.
Our world has fallen from glory. And no amount of material possessions can fill the emptiness that fallenness brings. We need redemption. We must have hope.
At the end of the Apostle Paul's life he wrote, "I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing" (2 Tim 4:7-8).
One Day I will be with my brothers and sisters in Christ forever. As I get older, time goes faster. This is God's grace to me. I know the end draws near. Therefore, I can endure. In glory, the redeemed laughter will never have to end, the glorified joy will be ever-flowing, geography will be easily overcome, and sin will frustrate us no more.
This, Christian, is our hope - the "inheritance of the saints in light" (Col 1:12). The more I long to be with my friends and family here, the more I long to be with them forever, in glory. This is Good News.
The more I think about this, the more I am made aware of how I long for the same. I want to be with loved ones without having to worry about them leaving. But it never fails does it? It seems that the enjoyment is always frustrated by separation. They may be with us now, but the clock is ticking. Geography will soon be placed in between us. Death will soon take one of us away.
I don't know my family like I once did. The miles that separate us have taken their tole. Remembering my childhood has become both a source of great joy and great sorrow. I want that closeness back; but reaching back to get it is impossible. I eagerly look forward to holidays, but at the same time, I dread their end.
I am also frequently frustrated that my time at seminary was so short. Some of the friendships I built there are more valuable to me than any other. I remember the classrooms and study sessions. I remember the town homes and children. I remember being rescued from sin. And I remember laughing till it hurt. I will never be the same. I will always long to be in their company. In a very real way, it hurts to live in another state.
It shouldn't have to be this way. Something is terribly wrong. Even the greatest parts of life are under inevitable attack. All good things must end. There's just no getting around it. Some of my best friends will probably always live in another state. I will more than likely attend my mother and father's funeral. My children will probably attend, with great sorrow, mine. These are the realities that we live with.
Our world has fallen from glory. And no amount of material possessions can fill the emptiness that fallenness brings. We need redemption. We must have hope.
At the end of the Apostle Paul's life he wrote, "I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing" (2 Tim 4:7-8).
One Day I will be with my brothers and sisters in Christ forever. As I get older, time goes faster. This is God's grace to me. I know the end draws near. Therefore, I can endure. In glory, the redeemed laughter will never have to end, the glorified joy will be ever-flowing, geography will be easily overcome, and sin will frustrate us no more.
This, Christian, is our hope - the "inheritance of the saints in light" (Col 1:12). The more I long to be with my friends and family here, the more I long to be with them forever, in glory. This is Good News.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Does God Change His Mind? A Response To Questions About Amos 7
In the first two visions of Amos (7:1-6), the Lord shows Amos how He is going to judge Israel. The judgments would be complete and terrible. Amos responds by praying that these things would not happen. The Lord answers Amos's prayer saying, "This shall not be."
This passage raises the reasonable question, How can God, who is unchangeable, seemingly change His mind? To begin, I believe it's appropriate to fist understand the ways in which God is unchangeable. In other words, God is not some eternal static brick in heaven. He speaks. He moves. He saves. So, there are obviously ways in which He does change; but these ways do not compromise the Scriptural teaching of immutability.
John Frame
suggests that, according to Scripture, God never changes in four categories. They are as follows:
1. God is unchanging in His essential attributes. Hebrews 1:10-12 tells us that, as the Creator, God does not change like His creation. The Westminster Shorter Catechism also states that God is unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth."
2. God is unchanging in His decretive will. Psalm 33:11 states that the plans of the Lord stand firm forever. This "decretive" will, however, must not be confused with, what theologians call, His preceptive will. Frame writes, "God's decretive will cannot be successfully opposed...It is possible, however, for creatures to disobey God's preceptive will - and they often do."
3. God is unchanging in His covenant faithfulness. The Lord states in Mal 3:6, "I the Lord do not change. So you, O decedents of Jacob, are not destroyed." Here He is telling them that He will fulfill His covenant promises, despite Israel's disobedience. He doesn't change, though his people do.
4. God is unchanging in the truth of His revelation. What God Himself declares to be true, will always be true. His ancient Word, therefore, will always remain (without change) our infallible guide.
Understanding God's decretive and preceptive wills gives us some insight to solve our present dilemma. Conditional proclamations are related to God's preceptive will, while straightforward predictions directly correlate to His decretive will. The visions that Amos saw fall under the category of conditional proclaimations, for there were tacit conditions built within them. The events would come to pass given certain conditions were or were not met. In this instance, the condition is obviously intercession.
It should be noted, however, that the decretive will always "wins the day" and provides a theological umbrella under which His preceptive will is played out according to human interaction.
Frame comments, "It is God's eternal intention to forgive Israel in the situation of Amos 7:1-6. But He does this through the power of Amos's intercession, and not without it...God has eternally decreed that He will forgive Israel, by means of Amos's intercession. This decree never changes."
In summary, we must understand immutability in a qualified way. We cannot just say that God never changes at all in any way; rather, we should be more inclined to say that He is immutable in certain ways. These ways are so ultimate and essential to His nature that it is right to say that God is unchangeable. However, we must not let our definition remove other essential attributes, like His covenant presence (or immanence) with us in the progress of redemptive history. Progress implies change.
With regard to Amos, the prophet well understood the unchangeable nature of God's revealed truth and covenant promise. He would always be with His people, in a very real way, throughout changing history. Amos was appealing to such sovereignty in his prayer. And the Lord, while changing in time, did so according to His unchanging promise and plan.
This passage raises the reasonable question, How can God, who is unchangeable, seemingly change His mind? To begin, I believe it's appropriate to fist understand the ways in which God is unchangeable. In other words, God is not some eternal static brick in heaven. He speaks. He moves. He saves. So, there are obviously ways in which He does change; but these ways do not compromise the Scriptural teaching of immutability.
John Frame
suggests that, according to Scripture, God never changes in four categories. They are as follows:1. God is unchanging in His essential attributes. Hebrews 1:10-12 tells us that, as the Creator, God does not change like His creation. The Westminster Shorter Catechism also states that God is unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth."
2. God is unchanging in His decretive will. Psalm 33:11 states that the plans of the Lord stand firm forever. This "decretive" will, however, must not be confused with, what theologians call, His preceptive will. Frame writes, "God's decretive will cannot be successfully opposed...It is possible, however, for creatures to disobey God's preceptive will - and they often do."
3. God is unchanging in His covenant faithfulness. The Lord states in Mal 3:6, "I the Lord do not change. So you, O decedents of Jacob, are not destroyed." Here He is telling them that He will fulfill His covenant promises, despite Israel's disobedience. He doesn't change, though his people do.
4. God is unchanging in the truth of His revelation. What God Himself declares to be true, will always be true. His ancient Word, therefore, will always remain (without change) our infallible guide.
Understanding God's decretive and preceptive wills gives us some insight to solve our present dilemma. Conditional proclamations are related to God's preceptive will, while straightforward predictions directly correlate to His decretive will. The visions that Amos saw fall under the category of conditional proclaimations, for there were tacit conditions built within them. The events would come to pass given certain conditions were or were not met. In this instance, the condition is obviously intercession.
It should be noted, however, that the decretive will always "wins the day" and provides a theological umbrella under which His preceptive will is played out according to human interaction.
Frame comments, "It is God's eternal intention to forgive Israel in the situation of Amos 7:1-6. But He does this through the power of Amos's intercession, and not without it...God has eternally decreed that He will forgive Israel, by means of Amos's intercession. This decree never changes."
In summary, we must understand immutability in a qualified way. We cannot just say that God never changes at all in any way; rather, we should be more inclined to say that He is immutable in certain ways. These ways are so ultimate and essential to His nature that it is right to say that God is unchangeable. However, we must not let our definition remove other essential attributes, like His covenant presence (or immanence) with us in the progress of redemptive history. Progress implies change.
With regard to Amos, the prophet well understood the unchangeable nature of God's revealed truth and covenant promise. He would always be with His people, in a very real way, throughout changing history. Amos was appealing to such sovereignty in his prayer. And the Lord, while changing in time, did so according to His unchanging promise and plan.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Church's Blind Spot Regarding Abortion
The Scriptures tell us that "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). There is a necessary order to relationships, even within the divine relationship of the Trinity. This does not mean that Christ is less than God in His nature or being, nor does it mean that a women is less than a man in her nature or being. However, with regards to the economy of relationships, there is a right authoritative order. The Father exercises authority over the Son. The Son exercises authority over man. Man exercises authority over his wife. These relationships are covenantal in nature.
We must not import the radical assumptions of our modern egalitarian world, where authority is seen as oppressive and submission is seen as a form of inferiority. When understood biblically, authority is a blanket of freedom and submission is an expression of gratuitous trust.
When a husband embraces this headship, he will begin to take initiative, serve responsibly, provide for his family, as well as represent them to the church and to the world. This world includes the civil government. And this is where our current topic begins.
As a church, we have not represented the family well - especially in the ways that have been set forth in Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 11:3). Consequently, our government continues to make decisions as if the family unit does not exist. For our civil society, individualistic autonomy has taken first seat. The results have been disastrous. Here is a comment from Wilson concerning abortion:
When our Supreme Court made its infamous decision to allow the slaughter of infants, the Christians of our nation were so covenantally blind that we did not see it for what it was - the abortion of the covenanted family. This is not to minimize in any way the horrific nature of the abortion carnage itself; God is just and He will judge. But why did we not even see the other problem? Consider the result of that decision. When a woman is considering an abortion, the Court informed us that this is a decision between her and her doctor. As far as our civil order is concerned, whether she is married or not is completely irrelevant.
Whether she has a covenant head or not was not worth considering. The fact that a man has taken a solemn vow assuming covenantal responsibility for his offspring was judged by our highest court to be a matter of no legal consequence. It is difficult to understand what is more tragic, the decision of the Court to slaughter the children or the inability of modern Christians to even notice that the Court had declared every child in the nation to be, as far as they were concerned, a covenant bastard.
Many men will rise up and insist that the government officials should be tossed out. But this would be hasty and neglectful. When confronted with the reality of our current situation, we must first go to the Lord, our Covenant Head. We must come to Him with repentance and faith. After that, and only after, we must pray that the Lord would bring light to all of our dark places - even our blind spots.
We must not import the radical assumptions of our modern egalitarian world, where authority is seen as oppressive and submission is seen as a form of inferiority. When understood biblically, authority is a blanket of freedom and submission is an expression of gratuitous trust.
When a husband embraces this headship, he will begin to take initiative, serve responsibly, provide for his family, as well as represent them to the church and to the world. This world includes the civil government. And this is where our current topic begins.
As a church, we have not represented the family well - especially in the ways that have been set forth in Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 11:3). Consequently, our government continues to make decisions as if the family unit does not exist. For our civil society, individualistic autonomy has taken first seat. The results have been disastrous. Here is a comment from Wilson concerning abortion:
When our Supreme Court made its infamous decision to allow the slaughter of infants, the Christians of our nation were so covenantally blind that we did not see it for what it was - the abortion of the covenanted family. This is not to minimize in any way the horrific nature of the abortion carnage itself; God is just and He will judge. But why did we not even see the other problem? Consider the result of that decision. When a woman is considering an abortion, the Court informed us that this is a decision between her and her doctor. As far as our civil order is concerned, whether she is married or not is completely irrelevant.
Whether she has a covenant head or not was not worth considering. The fact that a man has taken a solemn vow assuming covenantal responsibility for his offspring was judged by our highest court to be a matter of no legal consequence. It is difficult to understand what is more tragic, the decision of the Court to slaughter the children or the inability of modern Christians to even notice that the Court had declared every child in the nation to be, as far as they were concerned, a covenant bastard.
Many men will rise up and insist that the government officials should be tossed out. But this would be hasty and neglectful. When confronted with the reality of our current situation, we must first go to the Lord, our Covenant Head. We must come to Him with repentance and faith. After that, and only after, we must pray that the Lord would bring light to all of our dark places - even our blind spots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)