Funny Friday: This Happened in My City...Amazing!

Would God Send a Good Person to Hell?

When asked why they do not embrace Christianity, some people respond by saying that they do not believe in a god who would send a good person to hell. The proper response to this type of objection is not to begin dialoging about how God would or does send good people to hell. The reason for this is simple - it's just not true. The God of Christianity would never send a good person to hell. He is good, fair, and just.

Too often we are so set on disagreeing that we fail to recognize where we can and do agree. The case in point is an instance where we see the image of God in every person at work. We all desire a good and just God. This is precisely where the Christian faith shines. If some reject the Christian faith because its God is not good or just, they have not learned him accurately or well. They have rejected in error.

As far as I can see, the error is at least two fold:

First, some may approach the Scriptures with their own presupposed concepts of goodness and/or justice. When the God of the Bible is presented to them accurately, the biblical definitions of goodness and justice do not coincide with their own. Instead of changing their conceptions, they reject the biblical ones. I have encountered this not a few times.

The problem is tragic but simple: the Word of God brings change. If people encounter it without a willingness to change, they will reject the Word of God rather than change.

As a side-note, I have also found it interesting that when asked what their conceptions of goodness and justice are, or where their conceptions were obtained, the answers have been far from consistent, justifiable or objective. It usually boils down to the fact that their personal conception of good does not fit with the Bible's.

The second error is just that - error. It is typically grounded in a biased and unjustified disbelieve in the God of the Bible. They do not believe that the God of the Bible is just and good because they do not want to believe that the God of the Bible is just and good.

Either way, the Christian argument must be presented with grace and truth. We do not believe in a God who sends good people to hell. We just don't believe there is anyone who is good. The truth is that our God is even greater than this - not only is he good and just, but he is gracious and merciful. While we don't believe he sends good people to hell, we do believe he provides a way for bad people to enter into heaven.

This is problematic because he is just. But the problem is solved when we understand the Biblical truths of grace, substitution and sacrifice. Our God sends his Son to die to make bad people good. Then he allows them entrance into eternal life. Those who do not place their faith in the Son are left to their badness. And we do believe that he will send those to hell.

Misunderstanding "The Day the Lord Has Made"

Many Christians wake up each day saying, "This is the day the Lord has made. I will rejoice and be glad in it." This quote from Psalm 118:24 often helps us understand that the day itself is a gift of God, and that it should be received as a gift, with joy.  

This saying, however, also represents a classic case of the right theology taken from the wrong verse. When reading the verse in its immediate context, it becomes obvious that we commonly misuse it - and in so doing, we neglect the main point of encouragement it seeks to provide. 

The demonstrative pronoun "this" at the beginning of the verse should inform us that, rather than speaking of a general point of theology concerning the Lord's creative power for each day, this verse is speaking about a particular day in redemptive history concerning the Lord's saving power. 

In other words, instead of saying "Today is the day that the Lord has made," we should say, "That day was the Day the Lord made." While it is right to say that the Lord made today, it is not the main point of this verse.

When we read the entire Psalm, we notice that that day was the Day when the "gates of righteousness" were opened (v.19). It was the Day when the Lord answered prayer and became salvation for his people (v.21). It was the day when the cornerstone was rejected (v.22) - a Day that was the Lord's doing, and a day that should be marvelous in the eyes of his own (v.23). 

It was the day that when the people of God cried out, "Save us!" (v.25) And it was the day when God's people called him who came in the name of the Lord, "blessed" (v.26). It was the day when his redeeming light shone and the Sacrifice was made (v.27). It was the day for which we extol him and give him thanks for being our God whose steadfast love endures forever. (v.28-29).

While the Lord did make today, in Psalm 118 he is calling us to focus on another day that he made. It was the Day that the Lord brought salvation to his people. It was the Day Christ was rejected and crucified. It was the Day that he provided the sacrifice for our sins and showed his steadfast love. 

And just so we don't get it twisted, he wants us to know, that it was he who made that day. It was his doing. It was him saving. If he did not see fit to make that day, we would not have this day at all. It is because he made that day, that we can rejoice and be glad.

How to Respond to the Book About the Kid Who Goes to Heaven

With so many looking for reasons to believe, and with so many attempting to provide those reasons, it is vital for us to rightly define what those reasons should be. If we believe because of a faulty reason, our belief is likely to ultimately end up failing. Plainly put, the word of God alone is the only sufficient and certain reason to believe in God.

There is a lot of buzz surrounding books like, Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back. Many are reading these books and are finding legitimate encouragements to their faith. Others, however, are reading these books looking for a legitimate reason for faith in the first place.

In this post, I am expressing caution for the latter while encouraging the former. It is okay to find encouragements in these books for our faith; but it is not okay to find our ultimate reason for faith in the testimonies of individuals.

These books must find their right place in our epistemological order. The "proofs" they provide for heaven are not sufficient to save. Their words about what they have seen are not more certain or sure than the very words of God himself.

Here is an excerpt from Bahnsen's, Van Til's Apologetic, to provide some more insight into this:

"God's testimony is greater than that of any man - just because it is God's own testimony (1 Jn 5:9). Anyone who believes in the Son of God, according to Scripture, has this self-attesting testimony of God in his heart (v.10). When all is said and done, he has come to believe God's word on God's own say-so. That word is "more sure" and more persuasive than even miracles (e.g., Lk 16:31; 2 Pt 1:19; Jn 20:29, 31)...

So the only authority by which the identification of Jesus as God could be warranted would have to be the authority of Jesus himself, taken as the one whom he claims to be. Such self-identification or self-authorization is, in the very nature of the case, circular. And this is true of the divine information conveyed in other forms of revelation as well. In them God "testifies to himself" because there is nothing more epistemologically authoritative or morally ultimate that could authorize what he discloses."

The kid in the book may end up dying an atheist. He may even contradict himself or Scripture in the book. This is why the Word of God is so good. It helps us to rest. We do not have to sit and wait for the kid to die a believer. We do not have to wonder whether he was wrong about what he said. But we can allow his words to direct us to God's Word. And in those words we find saving power - the only true, certain, and effective reason to believe.

Half Known and Half Loved

If our life is like a cup, there is much of its contents that we keep hidden at the bottom. We do this naturally. Sediment sinks, and, while I prefer my coffee french pressed, I usually leave the last few sips - there's just too much junk down there.

This is our life. Every one of us has "too much junk" that we either tuck away, or that we quietly press to the bottom. We like offering others the first few sips because they are the best. Should they get too deep, we conveniently remove our cup from the table of life. If they taste that part, they are sure to send us away. They are sure to reject us.

And so we go about life superficially. Knowing only the good in others, and only being known for the good in ourselves (I say "good" with reservation).

But there are at least three major problems with this way of living. First, our cups are transparent. They are the see-through kind. We may push our sediment to the bottom, but people see it eventually. It takes only a moment for the eyes to follow the contours of the cup from top to bottom. Soon people see that we really aren't "doing okay" and that we are less than honest. Our clothes and courtesies are not very good at diverting people away from our corruptions.

The second problem with this way of life is that when we are half known, we feel only half loved. Our lives are enslaved to constant fear and anxiety of being "found out" and consequently rejected. Our relationships are, at best, superficial and disingenuous. We text more than we talk, we give fake answers to significant questions, we commonly use humor as a diversion tactic, and we find ourselves feasting at the table of impersonal products that "like us" like Facebook, twitter and iWhatever.

The third problem with this way of life is orthodoxy. Unfortunately for us "hiders" the Lord knows all. He knows the sediment, the corruption, the sins. And, sadly for us, he has a strict taste for only the finest of drinks. Should our sediment touch his palate, he would surely forsake us, spitting us out.

But his love is strong. This is the good news. Because he knows the bottom of our cup completely, he mercifully removes the condemnation completely. In his justice, he places it in the cup of his Son, and forsakes him instead. This happened at the Cross. In his grace, he gave us the perfection of his Son and accepted us accordingly. This is called justification.

Because of Christ, we can live honest lives - transparent lives. We are free to live without fear of others knowing the bottom of our cup. We are a forgiven people - all of us. And being wholly known, we know we are wholly loved. And being wholly loved, we can wholly love.

Funny Friday: Guaranteed to Make Your Marriage Better!

I'm gonna try some of these tips tonight...

We've Got It All Backwards

The gospel is strange. It is not normal. The Word of God always begins with statements of truth (indicatives) before giving statements of command (imperatives). It tells us who we are and who Jesus is before it tells us how we ought to respond, or how we are to act.

This is completely contrary to how we are inclined to relate to others, especially when dealing with conflict. When people sin against us, our first instinct is to tell them how they should and should not act. We typically like changed behavior over changed hearts. It's seems easier that way. It gives us the results that most convenience us. And it gives those results a lot quicker.

They are results we can control and manipulate - for a time. And when we stop to consider that the person is just not changing, we feel utterly helpless. We see that we may be able to steer behavior, but we know for certain that we cannot steer the human heart. Simply put, understanding the reality of relationships, lets us know that we are not God.

By using imperatives only as our way of navigating and managing relationships, we have neglected and even distrusted the Truth. We just don't believe the truth can set people free. We don't believe it can bring change. Even more, we are not patient or sacrificial enough to stick around to find out.

But the Lord is patient - and kind.  He is wise and powerful. Jesus is the Truth and he is the one to sets us free. He does what the Law could never do. He approaches rebels in love - giving them the truth, and, once changed, he gives them his benevolent, authoritative commands. The people of Israel were delivered before they received the law. We are given the truth of who we re in Christ before we are ever commanded to work for him.

So as we navigate relationships - yes, sinful ones - we must always do so in a gospel-centered way. You cannot stop a person from sneezing, but you can give them something that will take away their flu. If you put your hand over their mouth, you don't accomplish anything but smothering them. We must preach the gospel in love. The command comes later. If your anything like me, this sounds almost impossible.

That's also the point of the gospel. It robs us of our own strength and supplies us with his.

The Law You Are Resisting Shows What Sin Needs Killing

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 1 Jn 5:3

Every human being was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever. The writers of the Westminster Shorter Catechism thought this truth to be most important. It is the first question of the catechism. The second logically follows from the first, as it predicts the obvious question, "How do we know how to glorify God?" The answer to this (in not so many words) is his Word.

The Word of God, and more particularly, the Law of God is his gracious direction that guides us how we might glorify him; and in doing so, we find our most enjoyment. In other words, we were created to follow God's commandments. When we follow them, we are most happy. When we do not follow them, we are most miserable.

Bondage is not, therefore, having to obey the Law of God, but not being able to obey it. A person is enslaved when they cannot live how they were created to live. It's like a dog who walks around like a cat. His life is odd, and though he may wag his tail, there will always be some misery about him until he begins to bark and fetch like a dog.

How then should we understand God's Law in our lives. Often people use God's goodness, grace or forgiveness as an excuse to disregard the Law. When they focus on the commandments, they are too heavy, too burdensome. Christians shouldn't live under such burdens and so the Law must go. But this is the wrong way. This is not glorifying to God. And it is not ultimately what is most enjoyable to humanity.

When the commandments are burdensome, when there is a law that we just cannot seem to follow, the right way to respond is not by dismissing the Law, but by repenting of sin. The Law is holy, remember (Rom 7:12)? We are the problem. Burdens under God's Law are reminders to go to the Lord Christ in repentance and faith. The Law will crush those who do not find shelter in Christ, who was crucified.

Feeling the burden of the Law is a gracious thing. If ever you feel as if you don't want to follow God's Law, pray that the Spirit would search you and point out where you need correction and sanctification. The Law finds our sin, points it out to us, and goes on a rampage to have it out. Whatever Law you are resisting is a testimony of whatever sin needs killing.

But don't try and kill it yourself, or it will kill you. Go to Christ, trust in his life and death on your behalf, rely and depend upon his Spirit to kill whatever wicked way is inside.

What Am I Supposed To Do With My Life?

This is not an uncommon question. If many are not asking it, they are thinking it. It is a human question, a question that we all know needs to be answered by someone other than ourselves - someone who knows what's going on, someone in authority. Deep down, we know that we don't know all the facts. We know that, left to ourselves, we could very well run off of the edge of life's cliff.

The Scriptures, at this point, become a bit frustrating. It is common practice to look in them to find some magic text that tells us exactly what we are supposed to do with our lives. We pull out the concordance and look up our name, only to find that there are no listings. When we ask the most important question, the Word of God seems to be silent.

But it's not. Christ obviously has no intention of giving us particular directions from his Word. He is not going to say, "Scott, go here today, and there tomorrow." Or, "Johnny, take the job at McDonald's and don't take the one at Wendy's." I like to call this the glorious ambiguity of the Bible.

Having said all of this, I know there is need for some clarification. While the Scriptures are inexact in some personal sense, that doesn't mean that they are insufficient for every single person. And while they are gloriously ambiguous in particular personal imperatives (say that five times really fast!!!), they are far from unhelpful, and untrustworthy for each individual's life.

The problem tends not to be with the Scriptures, but with us. They are completely sufficient when we approach them in the right manner. If a guy from Wall Street goes to the Bible searching for the next big stock to buy, he will come away saying that they were insufficient for him. Similarly, I believe that we too often approach them in this way.

We want God's Word to be like an instruction manual. We want to read: 1) Do this; 2) Now do that; 3) Once you have done that, now do this, and so on. But God doesn't speak to us this way. He is far more loving and far more thoughtful. He is also far more simple.

While he may speak unclearly about where we should take a job, he is not so ambiguous in telling us what we should do with our lives. The command is so simple - we should love our neighbor as ourself. This is God's way of saying, "Don't worry about where you are going, just go! I will tell you where you are going later."

Loving another individual is not only a direct reflection of our love for God, but it is also an expression of our humble dependence upon him for everything in life. We often have to be dragged by love's cords into what we are supposed to do with our lives.

Loving another forces surrender. It is the cross-life. Discipling another in the faith is worth turning down a vacation or job. We may not want to, but for the sake of the other, we must.  Loving others demands our resources, time and efforts. Loving demands selflessness and sacrifice. Soon our questions shift from, "What am I supposed to do with my life?" to, "Where are they supposed to be in the Christian life?" This is where God wants us. This is where the Scriptures lose their [supposed] ambiguity.

The first question may take months or even years to find out. The answer to the second question should have been found yesterday - in the Bible. Love others well, and you will soon find out what you are supposed to do with your life. Love no one, and you will never truly know.

Loving our neighbor has a way of forcing us to wrestle with God. As their needs pull the life out of us, we tend to cling to the only one who can give it. And when he seems silent in our suffering, we are more inclined to plead with him for answers. And answer he does, every time, because he is good.

Bible Criticism Debate: Ehrman vs. Colbert

The irony in these clips is that Ehrman, an agnostic text critic, often uses rhetoric to persuade audiences. His ability to speak and write on a more "likable" level, allows him to elevate an otherwise boring topic (text criticism) to the platform of the New York Times Best Seller List.

In other words, Ehrman often blindfolds his audience with rhetoric while he slays them with his fallacious conclusions concerning God's Word.  And he has done this on a large scale.

Ehrman is a brilliant man, and witty.  Unfortunately for him, however, he is not as witty as Colbert.  Here is a case in point.  (Disclaimer: I am not in agreement with Colbert on some of his points, as well as some comments he makes for the sake of humor)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Who To Believe: An Eight Year Old Or An Expert?

Yesterday's post was about the heinous conclusions of the so-called ethical experts from Oxford University.  Citing experts, while useful in backing up an argument, is not always sufficient to establish one's position as truth, or, as in this ethical case, as right.  It is our duty as humans, created in the image of God, to think critically - to ensure that the truth is faithfully represented, and to protect it from being distorted.

Just because someone is an academic elite, does not give them the right to say or conclude what they want without careful criticism.  We must remember that PhD's do not set us free, the truth does. And when PhD's give us that which is not truth, they cease using their abilities for the sake of freedom, and instead lock the masses inside the intelectual (and moral) box of their own arbitrarily professed authority.

The fallacy is called an appeal to authority.  McDurmon, in his book on biblical logic, states that such an appeal "attempts to persuade by leveraging expertise, tradition, boasted credentials, fame, social status, celebrity, etc., when these characteristics do not necessarily pertain to the issue at hand. Even when cited authorities have legitimate expertise in the topic, their expertise itself does not guarantee the truth of the argument under discussion, nor does it even prove the cogency or soundness of the argument. Even the most learned individual can make mistakes, and even the most practiced expert can formulate poor arguments.  So, whenever you encounter a declaration that amounts to, "Expert X accepts Position A as true, and Expert X is an expert, therefore, Position A must be true," you have just witnessed an Appeal to Authority, and you have no necessary obligation to accept Position A as true simply because Expert X does...The fallacy assumes a link between authority and truth that does not of necessity exist."

Seeing this fallacy rescues "the average person" from the tyranny of the "above average person." Good logical reasoning is not reserved for the academic elite, but is given, by our Maker, to each and every individual.  Learning and furthering education certainly does sharpen our logical skill, but it does not produce it.

As I have said before, just because an atheistic scientist has spent thousands of dollars and hours in his search for how the universe came to be, does not make his conclusions immune from the corrective voice of a six year old, who simply quotes the authoritative Word of God.  And just because the ethicist from Oxford concludes that murder is right, does not mean that he cannot stand corrected by an eight year old who tells him that murder is wrong.

Oxford University and The Morality of Murder

Moral ethicists from Oxford University represent the hight of our world's moral academy.  Should someone attempt to bring an argument against their stated position, that person had better have their credentials in a row.  Without the letters PhD at the of their name, the world would probably not even consider the debate at all.  The experts have decided.  The case is supposedly closed.  Right?

Wrong.  Moral ethicists from Oxford University have argued that parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion.  Of course, this presupposes that abortion is "morally right." This presupposition turns an otherwise right train of thought completely on its head.

The baby inside of the womb is the same as the baby on the outside.  If abortion is right while the baby (or ball of lifeless, meaningless tissue) is on the inside, it is obviously right if the same baby is on the outside.  Parents have the "right" to do with it what they will.

If the presupposition is challenged, however, this argument becomes highly problematic for the above mentioned moral experts.  Should abortion be proven morally wrong, then these ethicists have just condoned murder.  Abortion is wrong.  The baby while inside the womb is just as valuable after delivery. They are not irrelevant.  And taking their life is no less than murder.

Sorry Oxford - you are wrong.  Your credentials, while arbitrarily meaningful here, are a stench in the nostrils of the Son of Man.  May God have mercy on your souls.  In the mean time, it is right to pray for justice to rain down on your institution before your conclusions sweep the globe.

You can read the complete article here.

Love Shouldn't Make Sense

The simplicity of the Christian life is too often the very reason why we just don't live it.  We want more complex strategies, morals, and plans of action.  The more complex, the more difficult.  And difficulty makes our excuses more plausible.  We can't be held accountable for such tasks.

But Christ and his commands are overwhelmingly simple.  His preaching is immensely practical and extraordinary humble.  He wanted children to understand.  This simplicity is indicative of the very love that he showed the world - a love that doesn't make any sense at all.  Luke 6 is a perfect example and its contents should strike us as inexcusably simple and inescapably direct.  They bring us immediately to the point of decision.

Do we trust his words?  Do we hope in the future that he speaks of? Will we love like he shows us?

Jesus says very clearly that our love should not make sense to those who do not love him - who do not trust or follow him.  His love and the love that he calls us to is no less than scandalous.  It makes everyone uncomfortable - those who do it, those who watch it, and those who experience it.  It is crazy and other-worldly.

The words of Christ:

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.  Give to everyone who begs from you, and from the one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.  And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them.  And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you?  For even sinners do the same.  And of you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.  But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:27-36).

I am going to withhold any comments for the reasons stated above.  They are simple enough.  At some point running to a commentary is like running to another teacher.

I will only say this.  Loving in a way that doesn't make sense may just get us killed (v.22), it may present us with a very uncomfortable life (vv.20-23), and it may mean that we forfeit all that we have always wanted.  But the promise that underlies this entire passage is also very clear.  Loving this way is worth it.  We'd be fools not to risk it all (vv.23b, 35b).