With the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet, we see heaven erupt in praise as the earth becomes Christ's. But what that means is not that He returns at that moment (although we'll explore that option in a little bit), but, rather, we see that God begins to destroy the kingdoms of this world and the leaders who have set themselves in opposition to Christ (see Psalm 2). In other words, the purging of Satan's Kingdom begins in preparation for the arrival of the Millennial Kingdom.
Now, on a computer screen, this sounds really simple. In the text, it can be confusing, because after recording the fall-out of the Seventh Trumpet (11:15-19), John turns to a series of visions involving a dragon, two beasts, and the infamous "666" (Chapters 12 and 13), then he turns his attention to a large group of people standing in heaven (14:1-5), three angels making rather dire pronouncements (14:6-13), and some sort of "harvest of the earth" (14:14-20). The bowls (ha ha! I keep typing "bowels," and have to go back to correct it! Sorry if I miss one!) themselves don't even arrive until Chapter 15. So what's going on in these intervening chapters, and how can we know that the Seventh Trumpet precedes the Seven Bowls? It sounds as if a whole lot of stuff happens in between the Trumpets and the Bowls, including the coming of the Beast.
And there are some timelines that present this. They present the "Antichrist" being killed, resurrecting, and setting up his kingdom between the Trumpets and Bowls. This is not a view without merit, but once we dig into the text, I think we'll see that there's reason to view these chapters as a combination of flashbacks/exposition for the remaining portion of Revelation.
I think.
So let's see what's going on here.
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,
and He will reign for ever and ever."
And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:
"We give thanks to You, Lord God Almighty,
the One Who is and Who was,
because You have taken Your great power
and have begun to reign.
The nations were angry;
and Your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding Your servants the prophets
and Your saints and those who reverence Your name,
both small and great -
and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within His temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth (11:15-12:2).
We looked at the passage with the woman (12:1-2) in an earlier post, so I won't re-hash all of that, except to say that she (almost) very clearly represents Israel, and her child (12:5) very clearly represents Christ. In other words, John has seen something that is sort of a flashback, but he's seeing it from the spiritual, hidden realm. We know that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers and rulers of the air and of this dark world, and it seems as if John was given a glimpse into Israel's history from the spiritual realm. We know that, sometime after Jesus, there has been/will be a "war in heaven," and that "Michael and his archangels [will fight] against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels [will fight] back. But he [will not be] strong enough, and they [will lose] their place in heaven" (12:7-8). Satan is hurled down to earth, attempts to make war on Israel (12:13), but she is spared, at which point Satan, in his rage, will go "off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (12:17).
It is at this point that the text outlines the arrival of "the beast from the Abyss." Understandably so, then, many people place the coming of the Beast at some point after the Trumpets. Why? Because, in the text, the Trumpets come first. But remember, John has flashed back to the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, then flashes forward to an unspecified point in time, and narrates the coming of the Beast. Because we do not know when all of this happens, to claim that these events are chronologically after the Trumpets is an assumption. And a bad one, at that.
"How can you say that? Are you claiming that your assumption has to be right?"
Not at all, because I'm not making an assumption. How do I know? Because the Beast from the Abyss is already on earth in Chapter 11, before the Seventh Trumpet ever sounds:
Now when [the two witnesses] have finished their testimony, the Beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them . . . But after three and a half days a breath of life from God [will enter] them, and they [will stand] on their feet, and terror [will strike] those who [see] them . . . The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon.
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet. . . (11:7; 11; 14-15a).
So when John describes the coming of the Beast in Chapters 12&13, he's giving a flashback/exposition of the Kingdom of the Beast that is about to be destroyed by the Seven Bowls of God's Wrath. Do you follow what I'm saying here? The Beast is on earth during the Trumpets, having already set up his kingdom, but his reference is only a passing reference (11:7). The Bowls are specifically designed to upend and destroy the Beast's kingdom (Chapters 15-18). Therefore, John, having not actually discussed this kingdom yet, steps back and describes its origins (Satan), its structure (Global), its religion (idolatry), and its economy (slavery).
At least, this is the best approach I can take. Now, to be fair, there is one more possibility, and that's that the Beast was on earth, but he is killed and resurrected after the Seventh Trumpet, and then sets up his kingdom, but as we've seen before, the actual words used in 17:8 really seem to imply that this Beast lived prior to John, was killed by a sword wound to the head, and will resurrect at some point after John. In short, we're seeing a flashback to the coming of/spiritual origins of the Beast, because the Bowls of God's Wrath very specifically target the Beast and his kingdom, and very specifically set up the world for the final war between the kings of the earth and God's Anointed One (Psalm 2; Rev. 19:11-21).
Now, before the Bowls, there are a few other things that take place. The first involves the appearance of 144,000 believers; we'll cover that topic in a different post, but just bear in mind that John addresses it here. The second thing John addresses, which we will cover here, is the appearance of three angels. The third thing John sees involves a very great harvest of the earth. Let's look at the angels, first.
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth - to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him Who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."
A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the Beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of His wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the Beast and his image, of for anyone who receives the mark of his name." This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus (14:6-12).
The three angels here are announcing the end of the Beast and his kingdom; this much is clear. What is interesting is that the first angel, quite literally, shares the Gospel with the entire world. There are those who believe this to be symbolic, and that he represents the Church, but since he is "flying in midair," I don't buy it - I'm not sure we can safely assume that believers will, at this time, be able to hover in the air as they proclaim the Gospel; that's a stretch. It also ignores the fact that there is a second angel, proclaiming the coming judgments (the Bowls) against the Beast and his kingdom. The same can be said of the third angel. If each angel represents believers, then we have the odd situation of three different kinds of believers.
The most straightforward reading of the text lends itself to the idea that these are three, literal angelic beings, flying in midair, and proclaiming the coming judgments. Remember, the point of all of this is two-fold: 1) God is revealing Himself in order that some may believe in Christ, and 2) God is pouring out His final judgment on earth, physically cleansing the earth from the final Kingdom of the Beast, in preparation for the return of Christ.
Things do get a little sticky with the third angel, who warns people against taking the Mark. This is superfluous if the Beast has already set up his kingdom by this point, since people will have already taken it. Verse 13 is also interesting:
Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."
"Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."
If the Rapture has happened already, prior to the Bowls, then . . . who is in the Lord at this point? I think - and I really am just speculating here - but I think John is seeing several things that are out of chronological order. Right? Because by Chapter 11, the Beast is already here. Chapter 12 deals with the coming of Christ and the expulsion of Satan (two completely different events that are separated by thousands of years of earth history). Then we have the rise of the Beast (a backwards look from the events of Chapter 11), then we have the 144,000 (who stand with Christ on Mount Zion, indicating His presence in His final, earthly kingdom), then three angels announcing both the coming (and the ending) of the Beast's kingdom (which clearly happens before Christ's kingdom). Lastly, Chapter 14 concludes with the divine slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, members of the Beast's kingdom (whose fall was announced, but has not happened yet, narrative-wise, in the Scriptures).
I believe the chapters are, frankly, distracting. We must remember that the chapter numbers are not in the original text, and that they were inserted quite some time after John wrote this letter, and I believe that Chapters 12 - 14 all deal with the Beast, his kingdom, and its fall, but is not meant to be a narrative of events. John tells us of the Beast in Chapter 11, along with the Trumpet judgments, and then tells us of the fall of the Beast's kingdom and the coming Bowls of God's Wrath in Chapter 15 and following. The intervening chapters - again, just speculating - but the intervening chapters appear to be expositional.
Well, that was lengthy, and we never actually got to the Bowls. But that's okay, because this is not a section of the Scriptures that one can just read leisurely and expect everything to just fall into place. Now, I fully realize that it has been quite some time since I posted one of these, but that's mostly because I've really been reading the Scriptures and praying about this, because the last thing I want to do is spout off completely inaccurate exposition of the Bible. But there are also many false prophets who claim that THIS is the year Christ will return, or THIS leader is the antichrist, or THAT event is the Third Trumpet, and so on and so forth. What I want us to do is be grounded in the Scriptures, so that we cannot be easily led astray by such things.
So I take my time on this, and I pray you can forgive the lengthy delays. Part 2 is coming, hopefully sooner, rather than later.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Surrender
Lately, I've been struggling with surrender. The funny thing about surrender . . . it takes giving up, and giving up can be frightening. In a war, an army surrenders and hopes the victors are lenient - but those who surrender know that are owed no leniency.
I have received a clear path from God, but surrendering, in this case, doesn't sit well with me, because I know it will be painful. I know that it's the path of most resistance, and I don't want that conflict. But God has also made it clear that this is the only way to freedom, the only way to obedience, the only way to reconciliation in this particular circumstance, and yet I continue to kick against the goads, hoping to muscle my way out of my predicament (a predicament, I might add, that I got myself into in the first place). Somehow, I keep trying to prove that my way is better than God's way.
Guess how well that's going?
And so, I stay trapped. I stay a giant humanoid hamster, running in the same wheel that, no matter how fast I run, leaves me going nowhere. Just like a hamster, I seem to think that this time, maybe, just maybe, if I run really, really hard, that wheel will make some progress.
My brother had a hamster when we were growing up. That animal was stupid. I used to watch it grab a piece of food, bury it in the corner of the cage, immediately run to the opposite corner, and try to find the food that it just buried. That hamster spent most of his short life looking horribly confused.
So I read my Scriptures every day and, often times, I put them into practice. I pray every day and, often times, my prayers are filled with way more confession and thanksgiving than requests. But when it comes to the hard obedience, the obedience that takes dealing with pain, confessing sins we'd rather keep hidden, and accepting the consequences of potentially broken relationships, I'm no better than my brother's stupid, stupid hamster.
I have received a clear path from God, but surrendering, in this case, doesn't sit well with me, because I know it will be painful. I know that it's the path of most resistance, and I don't want that conflict. But God has also made it clear that this is the only way to freedom, the only way to obedience, the only way to reconciliation in this particular circumstance, and yet I continue to kick against the goads, hoping to muscle my way out of my predicament (a predicament, I might add, that I got myself into in the first place). Somehow, I keep trying to prove that my way is better than God's way.
Guess how well that's going?
And so, I stay trapped. I stay a giant humanoid hamster, running in the same wheel that, no matter how fast I run, leaves me going nowhere. Just like a hamster, I seem to think that this time, maybe, just maybe, if I run really, really hard, that wheel will make some progress.
My brother had a hamster when we were growing up. That animal was stupid. I used to watch it grab a piece of food, bury it in the corner of the cage, immediately run to the opposite corner, and try to find the food that it just buried. That hamster spent most of his short life looking horribly confused.
So I read my Scriptures every day and, often times, I put them into practice. I pray every day and, often times, my prayers are filled with way more confession and thanksgiving than requests. But when it comes to the hard obedience, the obedience that takes dealing with pain, confessing sins we'd rather keep hidden, and accepting the consequences of potentially broken relationships, I'm no better than my brother's stupid, stupid hamster.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Freewill vs. God's Sovereignty, Pt. 2
If I had to guess, I'd say one of the biggest reasons this debate is even out there is because people completely misunderstand what it means to follow "God's Will." You know how I know? Because we use the term "God's Will," as if there is one single, set Will of God. In other words, we have made God's Will to be a singular thing when, in fact, God has numerous wills.
That's because the word "will" was, historically, a verb; we've turned it into a noun, but it was a verb, initially. Our English word "will" comes from the Old English word - sorry, I'm geeking out on you here - wyllan, and means "to want, desire, or wish." We have turned it into a noun, as I said, but even in its noun form, it still means "a want, desire, or wish." We do see this in our modern language today: a person's last will and testament is his or her stated desire for what should be done with all of his or her stuff. We actually see it in the future tense of the verb "to be," as well. If I say, "I will go to the store tomorrow," what that more literally means is, "I want to go to the store tomorrow." It used to carry with it the recognition that future plans were merely based on our desires, not a guaranteed outcome. I cannot, in all honesty, claim that I will successfully be able to go to the store tomorrow, because I do not know what the future holds. So, if this were 900 A.D., I would be saying that, if all goes well, my desire to go to the store tomorrow is going to be successful. I will to go to the store. Oh, and in German (our sister language with the same linguistic roots), if I wanted to do something, I'd say, "Ich will . . . ." I want.
Now, do any of us go through life with but one will and desire? No, of course not. We have multiple wills and desires as we go through life. For example, I want different things for my daughter than I do for my wife. I want different things for my wife than I do for my neighbor. I want different things for my neighbor than I do for his dog. Furthermore, my desires for each of these individuals can change from day to day, moment to moment. In the morning, I desire my daughter to eat breakfast. In the evening, I desire that she go to bed. I do not, however, desire that my daughter go out to the backyard to pee, as I want for my neighbor's dog when I am dog-sitting. I have multiple wills - sometimes for the same person (or pet).
And just as we - who are made in God's image - have multiple desires and wants in life, so does God. We looked at I Thessalonians in the last post, but we know that God desires for us to avoid sexual immorality, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that - though this is God's will, as Paul puts it - it would be quite ridiculous to claim that this is "God's Will." That is, to claim that God's entire purpose and plan for every person, without anything else at all on His mind, is that we avoid sexual immorality, is quite ridiculous. No one claims that, of course, so we instinctively recognize that God has multiple wills, and yet, many can stand at a pulpit or sit in front of a computer and claim, "Nothing can thwart God's Will!" Well, which will are we talking about there? Which desire of God are you referring to, if we all recognize that God has numerous desires? Because the Scriptures reveal numerous times where God's desires are thwarted.
The same Paul who told the church at Thessalonica to avoid sexual immorality also told numerous other churches and groups of believers to stop being sexually immoral. Well, if they were being sexually immoral, then they were not enacting God's Will - they were going directly against it, in fact. We can push this further and say that any time we sin, we are going against what God wants. Why? Because God never wants us to sin - sin is never God's Will. Here's the really - to me - odd thing: I have heard numerous pastors and theologians (read: Calvinists) assert that sin is never God's Will in one breath, but in the next, they will pronounce that nothing can thwart God's Will, because His Will is Sovereign.
That is utter insanity, as it is - quite literally - self-contradicting. It is a bizarre attempt to make two inherently contradictory statements agree, but it doesn't even actually make them agree - it just declares them to both be right. This is the foundation of Hinduism, on a side note. In Hinduism, the basic thought process is that everything in the world is valid and right. All gods are valid - even the ones who claim to be the only gods; all beliefs are valid - even the ones that contradict each other; truth is in the eye of the beholder - therefore contradictions don't matter. What we're seeing here is very cleverly disguised version of Hinduism - a version of Hinduism that has been dressed to look like Biblical Christianity.
The counter-argument to all of this is rather interesting, because the argument is that, if God's will can be thwarted, then God isn't really in control. But that's because we confuse "being in control" with "being controlling." These two things are not the same. Look at a manager who attempts to dictate every thought, word and action of his or her employees. We call that "micro-managing," and it doesn't work. That is an employer who, while he or she may control the employees, actually has no control whatsoever. Morale is always low, grumbling and rumors abound, and, eventually, people stop listening and caring, and do whatever they want. The more controlling an employer becomes, the less in-control that same employer is.
As another example, you are controlling of your car when you drive: you steer, you accelerate, you break, you turn on your blinkers, you stop at (or run!) red lights, etc. You are, quite literally, controlling your car. But you are not in control of driving. Why? Because you cannot predict the other guy who runs a red light, or the girl texting on her phone who swerves into your lane. You may be controlling, but you are not in control. These two things are separate ideas, and it is so with God.
God does not control everything, but He is in control. Why? Because we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose. God works things for good. No matter what our free will throws at God, He can still work with it - because He's God. He does not need us to be obedient in order to accomplish His purposes. He wants (wills) us to be obedient, He commands us to be, but when we're not, He is still God. He is still in control, even though He is not controlling, and even though we went against His desire for our lives.
Why There Are Some Christians Who Deny Free Will
Okay. This is a tricky thing, because it may require me to throw some people under the bus. I'm going to try very hard not to, and I'm going to try very hard not to be facetious, but I may not have a choice (Ha ha! See what I did there?).
If you go to your favorite search engine and type: "Do we have free will?" or some variation of that, you get quite a few hits - I found 911 million results - many of them secular. If you do a little bit of digging, however, you will come to some that are written by Christian groups who deny the existence of free will. And all of them - all of them - refuse to answer the question simply. Almost without exception, they all begin by throwing around theological jargon and fifty-cent words. For example, www.reformation21.org begins this way:
"Studying 'free will' is challenging because it is not defined in Scripture. Further, it is complex because it connects to many other larger theological issues; it intersects with philosophy, historical theology, and systematic theology"
"What is 'free will'?
"We should start by learning the standard terminology associated with the 'free will' debate.
1. 'Will' means the function of choosing.
2. Constraining forces cause people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. Non-constraining forces do not cause people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action. For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to talk on the edge of a tall building's roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.
3. Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined. Determinism holds that everything is causally determined (i.e., that prior events and conditions necessitate every event).
4. Incompatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are incompatible; it rejects determinism and affirms human freedom. Compatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are compatible.
5. Libertarian free will is the ability to either do something or not. Free agency is the ability to do whatever a person wants to do (apart from constraining causes). This difference is not a small one. For example, do non-Christians have the inherent ability either to choose to trust Christ or not? Is such a decision ultimately dependent on their will." . . .
The site goes on from there, but that's the start of it. Confused? Well, maybe you should see what The Village Church (the church run by Matt Chandler) has to say on the topic. After a brief introductory discussion of slavery (both in the Bible and in America), the author of the article writes:
"What Types if Freedom are We Considering?
When speaking of free will, one is not typically referring to the freedom to make mundane daily decisions. There is instead a more nuanced realm in which theological free will is discussed. Theologians call this area soteriology, the study of salvation. In this discussion, I want to limit our focus to this realm.
"I am explicitly asking about the role of the human will in coming to Christ. Will an unregenerate person trust Jesus without any external compulsion or must there be a prior work done in us to allow us to come? Furthermore, if there is this prior work, is it granted by God to all or only to some persons?
"Therefore we should bear in mind that this discussion of "free will" is not concerned with mundane daily choice or decisions believers make. It is concerned with the choice of an unbeliever to believe in Christ."
That was a bit better. But only a little bit. Notice how, with a wave of his hand, the author literally dismisses any and all examples of free will in our lives, focusing instead on what he considers to be the lack of free will in the most important aspect of life (as you'll see if you continue to read the article).
We could look at John Piper, Tim Keller, or the like, but we would find the same arguments, the same jargon, and the same dismissal of practical, real-world experience. But more than that, we find a dismissal of Scripture and a very zealous hold on a small, select number of passages that are being taken completely out of context. So, as I promised in the last post on this, let's take a look at some of those passages that people decide to use in order to argue against free will.
"I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
God is speaking to Abraham here, having just called him out from Ur (see Genesis 11:28,31), and this is a pretty big deal for Calvinists - as well it should be. God, Creator of the heavens and the earth, is calling to a specific person, and He's doing so for a very specific purpose. Here's the issue, however: most Calvinist theologians equate God's calling here with Abraham's salvation. This is not true, however. Why? Because not once did God, in any of this, say, "I will give you eternal rest in My presence." God said, "Get up and move, and I will make your descendants numerous."
Right? That's exactly what God says. This isn't a promise of salvation that God is making, but a promise of action. How can I claim this, aside from the obvious statement of the text? Several reasons.
First, Abram obeyed and moved, but brother man split the scene as soon as the going got tough. See, what some theologians do is talk about Abram's great faith when he moved, and that his trust in God revealed his salvation. But Abram didn't trust God - he obeyed, but only temporarily. He heard a Voice speak, and he did what It said, but that doesn't mean he acknowledged the voice as the One and Only God, or the Creator of the Universe Who knows the end from the beginning. This interpretation is one that is being shoe-horned into a text that reveals the opposite. Notice:
Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe (12:10).
God said, "Here's your home; I'll take care of you." Then the grocery store closed, and Abram left. "I'll take care of you" didn't resound anymore. Abram obeyed, but he didn't trust.
Further proof? What does he do with Sarai? Check out 12:11-16:
As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you."
When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman. And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels.
Dude pimped out his wife to save his own skin. God had promised to make him into a great nation, but he was afraid of dying. He didn't trust God.
Now, some may point out that, as believers, we often don't trust Him when we should. And I would agree with this; the letters of the apostles are filled with encouragement and reminders to trust in God, which would be completely unnecessary if wavering trust weren't an issue. But there's a second reason we know Abram wasn't saved when God called to him: because we're told when Abram was saved, and it didn't happen until Chapter 15:
Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man [see 15:1-3] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars - if indeed you can count them." Then He said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.
He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it" (4-7).
God called Abram to move to the land of Canaan in Chapter 12, but Abram wasn't saved until he trusted in God in Chapter 15. How do I know? Because it's what the Bible says. To interpret this any other way is to deny the plain statement of Scripture. Furthermore, God did not enter into a covenant with Abraham until Abraham was saved. Check out 15:12-19:
As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.
When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces [see 15:9-11]. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. . . ."
So what happened here? God called Abram in Chapter 12, but did not enter into a covenant with him until after he was saved, which only happened after he believed. Abram was called by God, yes, but he had to believe before receiving the righteousness of God, and he had to be saved before being part of the covenant. Calvinism reverses this, saying that God makes a covenant with us from eternity past, choosing us and not others, so that WE are saved in order for us to believe, and others will NEVER believe because God has rejected them from eternity past, and any apparent "decision" we make to trust God is only an illusion, because God has decided for us.
In other words, our entire existence and faith is a farce and a sham.
As I said, eliminating free will makes God out to be a liar.
Genesis 20:1-6:
Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and aid to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."
Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against Me. That is why I did not let you touch her."
For those who deny free will, there are eight words in this entire passage that they latch onto: "I have kept you from sinning against Me." The argument is that God kept Abimelech from doing what he wanted, thus proving we have no free will. But the entire point of prevention is because Abimelech has the option of acting out his desires. I do not have to prevent my daughter from flying away because she doesn't have that option. She may desire it, but she can't do it, and I therefore do not have to prevent her. Prevention is only necessary if free will exists. If God controlled our wills, then Abimelech would not have even taken Sarah to begin with.
Now, what I just wrote was an awful lot of speculation, I admit, but I have a second reason for claiming this: verse seven. Check it out: "'Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die.'" What's God doing here, in light of His next proclamation? He's giving Abimelech the choice of repentance, providing him with the consequences of either choice. This is meaningless posturing if God has already determined Abimelech's choice for him, and is, once more, deceptive on God's part.
Once again, using this text as "proof" that we do not have free will is blasphemous to God, and denies the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Okay, so this went on for far longer than I had anticipated. Therefore, I will wrap this up today, and the next post will deal with a few more passages commonly used to defend the non-existence of freewill. In the meantime, if you have a passage that you believe proves, without doubt, that free will doesn't exist, sound off below!
That's because the word "will" was, historically, a verb; we've turned it into a noun, but it was a verb, initially. Our English word "will" comes from the Old English word - sorry, I'm geeking out on you here - wyllan, and means "to want, desire, or wish." We have turned it into a noun, as I said, but even in its noun form, it still means "a want, desire, or wish." We do see this in our modern language today: a person's last will and testament is his or her stated desire for what should be done with all of his or her stuff. We actually see it in the future tense of the verb "to be," as well. If I say, "I will go to the store tomorrow," what that more literally means is, "I want to go to the store tomorrow." It used to carry with it the recognition that future plans were merely based on our desires, not a guaranteed outcome. I cannot, in all honesty, claim that I will successfully be able to go to the store tomorrow, because I do not know what the future holds. So, if this were 900 A.D., I would be saying that, if all goes well, my desire to go to the store tomorrow is going to be successful. I will to go to the store. Oh, and in German (our sister language with the same linguistic roots), if I wanted to do something, I'd say, "Ich will . . . ." I want.
Now, do any of us go through life with but one will and desire? No, of course not. We have multiple wills and desires as we go through life. For example, I want different things for my daughter than I do for my wife. I want different things for my wife than I do for my neighbor. I want different things for my neighbor than I do for his dog. Furthermore, my desires for each of these individuals can change from day to day, moment to moment. In the morning, I desire my daughter to eat breakfast. In the evening, I desire that she go to bed. I do not, however, desire that my daughter go out to the backyard to pee, as I want for my neighbor's dog when I am dog-sitting. I have multiple wills - sometimes for the same person (or pet).
And just as we - who are made in God's image - have multiple desires and wants in life, so does God. We looked at I Thessalonians in the last post, but we know that God desires for us to avoid sexual immorality, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that - though this is God's will, as Paul puts it - it would be quite ridiculous to claim that this is "God's Will." That is, to claim that God's entire purpose and plan for every person, without anything else at all on His mind, is that we avoid sexual immorality, is quite ridiculous. No one claims that, of course, so we instinctively recognize that God has multiple wills, and yet, many can stand at a pulpit or sit in front of a computer and claim, "Nothing can thwart God's Will!" Well, which will are we talking about there? Which desire of God are you referring to, if we all recognize that God has numerous desires? Because the Scriptures reveal numerous times where God's desires are thwarted.
The same Paul who told the church at Thessalonica to avoid sexual immorality also told numerous other churches and groups of believers to stop being sexually immoral. Well, if they were being sexually immoral, then they were not enacting God's Will - they were going directly against it, in fact. We can push this further and say that any time we sin, we are going against what God wants. Why? Because God never wants us to sin - sin is never God's Will. Here's the really - to me - odd thing: I have heard numerous pastors and theologians (read: Calvinists) assert that sin is never God's Will in one breath, but in the next, they will pronounce that nothing can thwart God's Will, because His Will is Sovereign.
That is utter insanity, as it is - quite literally - self-contradicting. It is a bizarre attempt to make two inherently contradictory statements agree, but it doesn't even actually make them agree - it just declares them to both be right. This is the foundation of Hinduism, on a side note. In Hinduism, the basic thought process is that everything in the world is valid and right. All gods are valid - even the ones who claim to be the only gods; all beliefs are valid - even the ones that contradict each other; truth is in the eye of the beholder - therefore contradictions don't matter. What we're seeing here is very cleverly disguised version of Hinduism - a version of Hinduism that has been dressed to look like Biblical Christianity.
The counter-argument to all of this is rather interesting, because the argument is that, if God's will can be thwarted, then God isn't really in control. But that's because we confuse "being in control" with "being controlling." These two things are not the same. Look at a manager who attempts to dictate every thought, word and action of his or her employees. We call that "micro-managing," and it doesn't work. That is an employer who, while he or she may control the employees, actually has no control whatsoever. Morale is always low, grumbling and rumors abound, and, eventually, people stop listening and caring, and do whatever they want. The more controlling an employer becomes, the less in-control that same employer is.
As another example, you are controlling of your car when you drive: you steer, you accelerate, you break, you turn on your blinkers, you stop at (or run!) red lights, etc. You are, quite literally, controlling your car. But you are not in control of driving. Why? Because you cannot predict the other guy who runs a red light, or the girl texting on her phone who swerves into your lane. You may be controlling, but you are not in control. These two things are separate ideas, and it is so with God.
God does not control everything, but He is in control. Why? Because we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose. God works things for good. No matter what our free will throws at God, He can still work with it - because He's God. He does not need us to be obedient in order to accomplish His purposes. He wants (wills) us to be obedient, He commands us to be, but when we're not, He is still God. He is still in control, even though He is not controlling, and even though we went against His desire for our lives.
Why There Are Some Christians Who Deny Free Will
Okay. This is a tricky thing, because it may require me to throw some people under the bus. I'm going to try very hard not to, and I'm going to try very hard not to be facetious, but I may not have a choice (Ha ha! See what I did there?).
If you go to your favorite search engine and type: "Do we have free will?" or some variation of that, you get quite a few hits - I found 911 million results - many of them secular. If you do a little bit of digging, however, you will come to some that are written by Christian groups who deny the existence of free will. And all of them - all of them - refuse to answer the question simply. Almost without exception, they all begin by throwing around theological jargon and fifty-cent words. For example, www.reformation21.org begins this way:
"Studying 'free will' is challenging because it is not defined in Scripture. Further, it is complex because it connects to many other larger theological issues; it intersects with philosophy, historical theology, and systematic theology"
"What is 'free will'?
"We should start by learning the standard terminology associated with the 'free will' debate.
1. 'Will' means the function of choosing.
2. Constraining forces cause people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. Non-constraining forces do not cause people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action. For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to talk on the edge of a tall building's roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.
3. Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined. Determinism holds that everything is causally determined (i.e., that prior events and conditions necessitate every event).
4. Incompatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are incompatible; it rejects determinism and affirms human freedom. Compatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are compatible.
5. Libertarian free will is the ability to either do something or not. Free agency is the ability to do whatever a person wants to do (apart from constraining causes). This difference is not a small one. For example, do non-Christians have the inherent ability either to choose to trust Christ or not? Is such a decision ultimately dependent on their will." . . .
The site goes on from there, but that's the start of it. Confused? Well, maybe you should see what The Village Church (the church run by Matt Chandler) has to say on the topic. After a brief introductory discussion of slavery (both in the Bible and in America), the author of the article writes:
"What Types if Freedom are We Considering?
When speaking of free will, one is not typically referring to the freedom to make mundane daily decisions. There is instead a more nuanced realm in which theological free will is discussed. Theologians call this area soteriology, the study of salvation. In this discussion, I want to limit our focus to this realm.
"I am explicitly asking about the role of the human will in coming to Christ. Will an unregenerate person trust Jesus without any external compulsion or must there be a prior work done in us to allow us to come? Furthermore, if there is this prior work, is it granted by God to all or only to some persons?
"Therefore we should bear in mind that this discussion of "free will" is not concerned with mundane daily choice or decisions believers make. It is concerned with the choice of an unbeliever to believe in Christ."
That was a bit better. But only a little bit. Notice how, with a wave of his hand, the author literally dismisses any and all examples of free will in our lives, focusing instead on what he considers to be the lack of free will in the most important aspect of life (as you'll see if you continue to read the article).
We could look at John Piper, Tim Keller, or the like, but we would find the same arguments, the same jargon, and the same dismissal of practical, real-world experience. But more than that, we find a dismissal of Scripture and a very zealous hold on a small, select number of passages that are being taken completely out of context. So, as I promised in the last post on this, let's take a look at some of those passages that people decide to use in order to argue against free will.
"I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
God is speaking to Abraham here, having just called him out from Ur (see Genesis 11:28,31), and this is a pretty big deal for Calvinists - as well it should be. God, Creator of the heavens and the earth, is calling to a specific person, and He's doing so for a very specific purpose. Here's the issue, however: most Calvinist theologians equate God's calling here with Abraham's salvation. This is not true, however. Why? Because not once did God, in any of this, say, "I will give you eternal rest in My presence." God said, "Get up and move, and I will make your descendants numerous."
Right? That's exactly what God says. This isn't a promise of salvation that God is making, but a promise of action. How can I claim this, aside from the obvious statement of the text? Several reasons.
First, Abram obeyed and moved, but brother man split the scene as soon as the going got tough. See, what some theologians do is talk about Abram's great faith when he moved, and that his trust in God revealed his salvation. But Abram didn't trust God - he obeyed, but only temporarily. He heard a Voice speak, and he did what It said, but that doesn't mean he acknowledged the voice as the One and Only God, or the Creator of the Universe Who knows the end from the beginning. This interpretation is one that is being shoe-horned into a text that reveals the opposite. Notice:
Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe (12:10).
God said, "Here's your home; I'll take care of you." Then the grocery store closed, and Abram left. "I'll take care of you" didn't resound anymore. Abram obeyed, but he didn't trust.
Further proof? What does he do with Sarai? Check out 12:11-16:
As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you."
When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman. And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels.
Dude pimped out his wife to save his own skin. God had promised to make him into a great nation, but he was afraid of dying. He didn't trust God.
Now, some may point out that, as believers, we often don't trust Him when we should. And I would agree with this; the letters of the apostles are filled with encouragement and reminders to trust in God, which would be completely unnecessary if wavering trust weren't an issue. But there's a second reason we know Abram wasn't saved when God called to him: because we're told when Abram was saved, and it didn't happen until Chapter 15:
Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man [see 15:1-3] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars - if indeed you can count them." Then He said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.
He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it" (4-7).
God called Abram to move to the land of Canaan in Chapter 12, but Abram wasn't saved until he trusted in God in Chapter 15. How do I know? Because it's what the Bible says. To interpret this any other way is to deny the plain statement of Scripture. Furthermore, God did not enter into a covenant with Abraham until Abraham was saved. Check out 15:12-19:
As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.
When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces [see 15:9-11]. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. . . ."
So what happened here? God called Abram in Chapter 12, but did not enter into a covenant with him until after he was saved, which only happened after he believed. Abram was called by God, yes, but he had to believe before receiving the righteousness of God, and he had to be saved before being part of the covenant. Calvinism reverses this, saying that God makes a covenant with us from eternity past, choosing us and not others, so that WE are saved in order for us to believe, and others will NEVER believe because God has rejected them from eternity past, and any apparent "decision" we make to trust God is only an illusion, because God has decided for us.
In other words, our entire existence and faith is a farce and a sham.
As I said, eliminating free will makes God out to be a liar.
Genesis 20:1-6:
Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and aid to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."
Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against Me. That is why I did not let you touch her."
For those who deny free will, there are eight words in this entire passage that they latch onto: "I have kept you from sinning against Me." The argument is that God kept Abimelech from doing what he wanted, thus proving we have no free will. But the entire point of prevention is because Abimelech has the option of acting out his desires. I do not have to prevent my daughter from flying away because she doesn't have that option. She may desire it, but she can't do it, and I therefore do not have to prevent her. Prevention is only necessary if free will exists. If God controlled our wills, then Abimelech would not have even taken Sarah to begin with.
Now, what I just wrote was an awful lot of speculation, I admit, but I have a second reason for claiming this: verse seven. Check it out: "'Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die.'" What's God doing here, in light of His next proclamation? He's giving Abimelech the choice of repentance, providing him with the consequences of either choice. This is meaningless posturing if God has already determined Abimelech's choice for him, and is, once more, deceptive on God's part.
Once again, using this text as "proof" that we do not have free will is blasphemous to God, and denies the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Okay, so this went on for far longer than I had anticipated. Therefore, I will wrap this up today, and the next post will deal with a few more passages commonly used to defend the non-existence of freewill. In the meantime, if you have a passage that you believe proves, without doubt, that free will doesn't exist, sound off below!
Monday, November 13, 2017
Flood Legends on Kindle
A few weeks back, I posted that Flood Legends was #1 on Amazon's "Histriography" list. Now,three weeks later, it's STILL in the top 100 (#93, to be precise)! That's insane! This is the longest run it has ever had in the top 100 in this category. Thank you for being so interested in the Scriptures!
Monday, October 23, 2017
Flood Legends on Kindle
Hey, everyone! I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for rocketing Flood Legends to #1 in Amazon's "Histriography" sales for Kindle! Even now, three days later, it's still #3 in that category! I, frankly, don't understand it, but I'm grateful for the fact that so many of you resonate with this book.
Now go and give your copy to someone who needs to read it!
Now go and give your copy to someone who needs to read it!
Monday, October 2, 2017
No-Nonsense Movie Review: The Dark Tower
This is quite a sidestep this is for me. In a blog about Jesus, the Bible, mythology, and - on rare occasions - cooking, writing a post about a movie (a movie based on a series of sci-fi-western books written by a totally pagan author, no less) is a little out of the ordinary. It's odd; I totally get it, and if you are uninterested (maybe even confused) by it, don't feel bad. Really. But I wanted to write this review because I see a grave disservice being done to this film for one reason in particular, and this is a reason that is indicative of most of our lives in this country, especially within the Church: forming opinions, while not having any clue what we're talking about. So let's get to this review, and then take a step back and see the broader issue here.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Freewill vs. God's Sovereignty, Pt. 1
This is a massively loaded topic, and I realize that. However, there has been a growing trend in our churches these days to dismiss free will, claiming that free will denies God's Sovereignty. The argument is that if man is in control of his own thoughts and actions, then God can't be, because in believing in free will, we are placing our will above God's.
What denying free will actually does, however, is make God out to be a liar and a hypocrite. So what we're going to do is take a look at just a few of the passages in Scripture that undermine this idea that we don't have free will, and help us understand the character of God more clearly as He has revealed it, not as man has reasoned it.
Free Will in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 30:11-20:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
"But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the LORD is your life, and He will give you many years in the land He swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Moses, at the command of God, called the Israelites together and, after renewing the covenant originally give on Mount Sinai, gave them this speech. Notice the elements of the speech:
1) Obedience to the Law is not too difficult or beyond their reach (11-14). We saw this in a previous post, but this presents to us a choice: whenever we are faced with the temptation to disobey God, we have the ability to choose obedience. This presents us good news, in that obedience is possible, but it also presents bad news: when we don't obey, it's because we choose not to; that is the plain, simple truth of it. Your sin, therefore, is not because God decreed that you should sin, but your sin exists because you decreed it and He allowed it.
2) A choice is set before the Israelites (15). Moses, without any complicated theology and seminarian logic, is giving them two options. Now, if God has decreed that the Israelites are going to follow the disobedience route, then this choice is a false one. Why? Because God is pretending to give them options, when, in reality, He has already chosen their path for them, thus meaning they do not have a real choice. Do you understand this? If God is pretending to give a choice, then He is lying. Since we know that God does not lie, this must be a legitimate choice.
3) God gives them two potential futures, based on their choices (16-18). Again, if God has already predetermined which choices He wants them to make, then these two verses are dishonest, because they don't have two, potential outcomes, only the single outcome that God has chosen for them to have.
4) God lays out the option of choosing (19). Just in case you still don't believe that Israel had the free will to choose whether or not to obey God, God literally says through Moses, "Choose life." Since they didn't, we know they had the ability to choose contrary to what God wanted. This is free will: choosing, on your own, whether or not you will obey God.
II Kings 13:14-19:
Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died. Jehoash king of Israel went down to see him and wept over him. "My father! My father!" he cried. "The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"
Elisha said, "Get a bow and some arrows," and he did so. "Take the bow in your hands," he said to the king of Israel. When he had taken it, Elisha put his hands on the king's hands.
"Open the east window," he said, and he opened it. "Shoot!" Elisha said, and he shot. "The LORD's arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram" Elisha declared. "You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek."
Then he said, "Take the arrows," and the king took them. Elisha told him, "Strike the ground." he struck it three times and stopped. The man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times."
Obviously, I started this in the middle of the story. The background is that Jehoash was the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the king of Aram came to attack him at the city of Aphek. Jehoash, aware that he would only be successful if God blessed the venture, went to see Elisha. What did Elisha assure the king? That he would win the fight, and Aram would be destroyed (17). But notice something. . . .
Jehoash's lackluster response in striking the arrows on the ground cost them something. Instead of completely destroying them, as Elisha assured him would happen, the king would defeat Aram in three battles, but they wouldn't be destroyed completely. Aram would, after the losses, slink back to its kingdom with its tail tucked between its legs, but God's pronouncement of judgment against Aram would be delayed until Jehoash's son, Jeroboam II (14:25, 28).
Notice that we are given both the potential future, as well as the actual events that happened, and the difference between those two hinged solely on King Jehoash's actions. This isn't hypothetical speculation, it's what is stated in the Scripture. Notice:
1)We're told that Jehoash would have the victory over Aram, completely destroying them (17).
2) We're told that Jehoash made the wrong choice (18-19).
3) We're told that that choice would produce a different outcome than what was originally announced (19; 14:25,28).
In any other scenario - outside of theology, that is - this would be called free will and the consequences that result from free will; Jehoash's decision and actions changed the outcome. I am not guessing that the outcome changed, Elisha told us the outcome changed, and that it changed based solely on the king's actions.
Ezra 2:68:
When they arrived at the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.
This is one of only a handful of times (ten or so) the word "freewill" is actually used, but when it is used, it is used to denote a very special offering: an offering that the worshiper gave simply because he or she wanted to do so . . . of his or her own free will. There were other offerings that were voluntary, but done for specific purposes (burnt offerings and thanksgiving offerings, for example), but the free will offering was simply a person who wanted to give an extra offering for no other reason than that he or she wanted to do so. Now, why was it called the freewill offering? Because the writers of the Bible - under the direction of the Holy Spirit - recognized it as an act of free will. If the writers of the Scriptures acknowledged the existence of free will, then denying it is to go against the Word of God.
Ezekiel 33:1;7-9:
The word of the LORD came to me . . . "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself."
This passage comes up often when people try to persuade others that free will exists, but it's almost always from the perspective of the wicked man being saved (or, in this case, not being saved). I want to look at it from the perspective of what God is telling Ezekiel, though.
God is giving Ezekiel a choice, and telling him that the better choice is to obey and preach. Now, listen, did God predetermine which choice He wanted Ezekiel to make, and then decree and predetermine that to happen? There is nothing whatsoever in this passage to suggest that. What we have is very straightforward: "Ezekiel, if you don't warn him, you'll be accountable for his blood. If you do, you'll have saved yourself." Once more, in any other situation, we would call this a free choice. Why? Because God gave Ezekiel the possible consequences that he would face, in order to persuade him to make the choice God wanted him to make. If this is untrue, if God had already ordained and selected the choice for Ezekiel, then God's entire speech here is a posturing lie.
Free Will in the New Testament
II Corinthians 9:7:
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Paul, who was the best theologian who ever lived, had a perfect opportunity to impress upon us that God directs every thought and action, and that we do not decide anything in our own hearts. But Paul says the exact opposite here, doesn't he? He specifically tells us that each man decides in his own heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver.
Now, let's think this through, for a moment. My daughter spent a great deal of time making a bookmark for me on Father's Day. It was my Father's Day gift. She took a narrow strip of paper, and she colored it, wrote her name, covered it in all kinds of stickers - really went all-out, four-year-old-style. And, listen, I cherish it. Why? Because she, of her own compulsion and love for me, made this bookmark. It is admittedly tacky, but I don't care - it's my daughter's gift to me.
Let's say, instead, that I forced my daughter to give me a gift. I took her to the store, told her she had to spend her allowance on me, handed her the gift I wanted, and then made her pay for it and hand it back to me. That's not a gift, is it? Under no circumstances would that be considered a gift.
Now let's take it a step further and say I have the ability to mentally influence her to choose to give me a gift (which is how the lack of freewill is often defended). Is that the same? Is it now a gift? No, it's not. It's me pretending she chose to give me a gift, in order for me to feel better about her. By removing free will, our offerings become God pretending that we love Him of our own volition, God pretending that we are cheerful givers, God pretending that we are His people.
Ephesians 6:19-20:
Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Does Paul have the option of declaring the Gospel fearlessly, if he has no free will? If God has decreed that certain people won't hear the Gospel - because He doesn't want to save them, as Calvinism teaches - then is it necessary or possible for Paul to preach to them fearlessly? Or even at all? Contrarily, if Paul is preaching to a group of people whom God has already declared and decreed will be saved, then is it necessary for Paul to preach fearlessly? If it is truly God Who regenerates a person in order for them to first believe, and if it is God Who does the calling, and if God's will can never be thwarted by our actions or thoughts, then why ask God for the fearless spirit of preaching? More so, why pray at all? Paul is wasting valuable time and energy worrying about making a mistake or being a coward, when he very well could say, "Well, if I'm not preaching fearlessly in this moment, then it's because God, in his Sovereignty, hasn't chosen these people to be saved." Furthermore, if it truly is not hinging on our actions, then Paul is worrying, for no reason, that he may fail. So, either Paul is wrong in his theology, or the theology that many people hold - that free will doesn't exist - is wrong.
I Thessalonians 4:3-5:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God.
The argument, again, that if we have free will, then God's will is not being done, is completely demolished here. Why? "It is God's will . . . that you should avoid sexual immorality." What is God's will? That we avoid sexual immorality. Do we always avoid it? Not according to all of the studies. A large number of Christian men (and a growing number of Christian women) are involved in pornography. Some have affairs. And most of us - if we take Jesus' definition of adultery seriously - are adulterous. Or have been, at least. Is God's will being done in those instances?
Clearly not. Whose will is being done? Ours. Is it being enacted because God wills us to enact it? If that's the case, then He's being contradictory. Why? Because if His stated will is that we avoid sexual immorality, but He also wills us to commit immorality when we do, then He is, quite literally, desiring that we do what He desires us not to do. This is dishonest . . . at best.
* * *
Okay, so I have much more to say on this, with many more passages of Scripture. For now I will close this out, but in the next part, I will be examining the passages that people often use to defend the non-existence of free will. We'll also look more in-depth at the difference between Biblical Sovereignty of God, and false Sovereignty of God.
And if you're interested in other passages that describe our ability to use the free will that God gave us, check out some of these:
II Chronicles 36:15-17
Psalm 95:7-11
Isaiah 5:1-7
Isaiah 10:5-12
Isaiah 42:23-25
Jeremiah 38:19-23
Ezekiel 16:16
Matthew 21:33-46
Mark 6:5-6
Luke 1:45
Luke 7:30
John 1:10-13
Acts 14:1-2
Acts 14:14-21
I Thess. 3:5
Jude 5-7
As always, if you have questions or comments, leave them in the space below!
What denying free will actually does, however, is make God out to be a liar and a hypocrite. So what we're going to do is take a look at just a few of the passages in Scripture that undermine this idea that we don't have free will, and help us understand the character of God more clearly as He has revealed it, not as man has reasoned it.
Free Will in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 30:11-20:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
"But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the LORD is your life, and He will give you many years in the land He swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Moses, at the command of God, called the Israelites together and, after renewing the covenant originally give on Mount Sinai, gave them this speech. Notice the elements of the speech:
1) Obedience to the Law is not too difficult or beyond their reach (11-14). We saw this in a previous post, but this presents to us a choice: whenever we are faced with the temptation to disobey God, we have the ability to choose obedience. This presents us good news, in that obedience is possible, but it also presents bad news: when we don't obey, it's because we choose not to; that is the plain, simple truth of it. Your sin, therefore, is not because God decreed that you should sin, but your sin exists because you decreed it and He allowed it.
2) A choice is set before the Israelites (15). Moses, without any complicated theology and seminarian logic, is giving them two options. Now, if God has decreed that the Israelites are going to follow the disobedience route, then this choice is a false one. Why? Because God is pretending to give them options, when, in reality, He has already chosen their path for them, thus meaning they do not have a real choice. Do you understand this? If God is pretending to give a choice, then He is lying. Since we know that God does not lie, this must be a legitimate choice.
3) God gives them two potential futures, based on their choices (16-18). Again, if God has already predetermined which choices He wants them to make, then these two verses are dishonest, because they don't have two, potential outcomes, only the single outcome that God has chosen for them to have.
4) God lays out the option of choosing (19). Just in case you still don't believe that Israel had the free will to choose whether or not to obey God, God literally says through Moses, "Choose life." Since they didn't, we know they had the ability to choose contrary to what God wanted. This is free will: choosing, on your own, whether or not you will obey God.
II Kings 13:14-19:
Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died. Jehoash king of Israel went down to see him and wept over him. "My father! My father!" he cried. "The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"
Elisha said, "Get a bow and some arrows," and he did so. "Take the bow in your hands," he said to the king of Israel. When he had taken it, Elisha put his hands on the king's hands.
"Open the east window," he said, and he opened it. "Shoot!" Elisha said, and he shot. "The LORD's arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram" Elisha declared. "You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek."
Then he said, "Take the arrows," and the king took them. Elisha told him, "Strike the ground." he struck it three times and stopped. The man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times."
Obviously, I started this in the middle of the story. The background is that Jehoash was the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the king of Aram came to attack him at the city of Aphek. Jehoash, aware that he would only be successful if God blessed the venture, went to see Elisha. What did Elisha assure the king? That he would win the fight, and Aram would be destroyed (17). But notice something. . . .
Jehoash's lackluster response in striking the arrows on the ground cost them something. Instead of completely destroying them, as Elisha assured him would happen, the king would defeat Aram in three battles, but they wouldn't be destroyed completely. Aram would, after the losses, slink back to its kingdom with its tail tucked between its legs, but God's pronouncement of judgment against Aram would be delayed until Jehoash's son, Jeroboam II (14:25, 28).
Notice that we are given both the potential future, as well as the actual events that happened, and the difference between those two hinged solely on King Jehoash's actions. This isn't hypothetical speculation, it's what is stated in the Scripture. Notice:
1)We're told that Jehoash would have the victory over Aram, completely destroying them (17).
2) We're told that Jehoash made the wrong choice (18-19).
3) We're told that that choice would produce a different outcome than what was originally announced (19; 14:25,28).
In any other scenario - outside of theology, that is - this would be called free will and the consequences that result from free will; Jehoash's decision and actions changed the outcome. I am not guessing that the outcome changed, Elisha told us the outcome changed, and that it changed based solely on the king's actions.
Ezra 2:68:
When they arrived at the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.
This is one of only a handful of times (ten or so) the word "freewill" is actually used, but when it is used, it is used to denote a very special offering: an offering that the worshiper gave simply because he or she wanted to do so . . . of his or her own free will. There were other offerings that were voluntary, but done for specific purposes (burnt offerings and thanksgiving offerings, for example), but the free will offering was simply a person who wanted to give an extra offering for no other reason than that he or she wanted to do so. Now, why was it called the freewill offering? Because the writers of the Bible - under the direction of the Holy Spirit - recognized it as an act of free will. If the writers of the Scriptures acknowledged the existence of free will, then denying it is to go against the Word of God.
Ezekiel 33:1;7-9:
The word of the LORD came to me . . . "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself."
This passage comes up often when people try to persuade others that free will exists, but it's almost always from the perspective of the wicked man being saved (or, in this case, not being saved). I want to look at it from the perspective of what God is telling Ezekiel, though.
God is giving Ezekiel a choice, and telling him that the better choice is to obey and preach. Now, listen, did God predetermine which choice He wanted Ezekiel to make, and then decree and predetermine that to happen? There is nothing whatsoever in this passage to suggest that. What we have is very straightforward: "Ezekiel, if you don't warn him, you'll be accountable for his blood. If you do, you'll have saved yourself." Once more, in any other situation, we would call this a free choice. Why? Because God gave Ezekiel the possible consequences that he would face, in order to persuade him to make the choice God wanted him to make. If this is untrue, if God had already ordained and selected the choice for Ezekiel, then God's entire speech here is a posturing lie.
Free Will in the New Testament
II Corinthians 9:7:
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Paul, who was the best theologian who ever lived, had a perfect opportunity to impress upon us that God directs every thought and action, and that we do not decide anything in our own hearts. But Paul says the exact opposite here, doesn't he? He specifically tells us that each man decides in his own heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver.
Now, let's think this through, for a moment. My daughter spent a great deal of time making a bookmark for me on Father's Day. It was my Father's Day gift. She took a narrow strip of paper, and she colored it, wrote her name, covered it in all kinds of stickers - really went all-out, four-year-old-style. And, listen, I cherish it. Why? Because she, of her own compulsion and love for me, made this bookmark. It is admittedly tacky, but I don't care - it's my daughter's gift to me.
Let's say, instead, that I forced my daughter to give me a gift. I took her to the store, told her she had to spend her allowance on me, handed her the gift I wanted, and then made her pay for it and hand it back to me. That's not a gift, is it? Under no circumstances would that be considered a gift.
Now let's take it a step further and say I have the ability to mentally influence her to choose to give me a gift (which is how the lack of freewill is often defended). Is that the same? Is it now a gift? No, it's not. It's me pretending she chose to give me a gift, in order for me to feel better about her. By removing free will, our offerings become God pretending that we love Him of our own volition, God pretending that we are cheerful givers, God pretending that we are His people.
Ephesians 6:19-20:
Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Does Paul have the option of declaring the Gospel fearlessly, if he has no free will? If God has decreed that certain people won't hear the Gospel - because He doesn't want to save them, as Calvinism teaches - then is it necessary or possible for Paul to preach to them fearlessly? Or even at all? Contrarily, if Paul is preaching to a group of people whom God has already declared and decreed will be saved, then is it necessary for Paul to preach fearlessly? If it is truly God Who regenerates a person in order for them to first believe, and if it is God Who does the calling, and if God's will can never be thwarted by our actions or thoughts, then why ask God for the fearless spirit of preaching? More so, why pray at all? Paul is wasting valuable time and energy worrying about making a mistake or being a coward, when he very well could say, "Well, if I'm not preaching fearlessly in this moment, then it's because God, in his Sovereignty, hasn't chosen these people to be saved." Furthermore, if it truly is not hinging on our actions, then Paul is worrying, for no reason, that he may fail. So, either Paul is wrong in his theology, or the theology that many people hold - that free will doesn't exist - is wrong.
I Thessalonians 4:3-5:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God.
The argument, again, that if we have free will, then God's will is not being done, is completely demolished here. Why? "It is God's will . . . that you should avoid sexual immorality." What is God's will? That we avoid sexual immorality. Do we always avoid it? Not according to all of the studies. A large number of Christian men (and a growing number of Christian women) are involved in pornography. Some have affairs. And most of us - if we take Jesus' definition of adultery seriously - are adulterous. Or have been, at least. Is God's will being done in those instances?
Clearly not. Whose will is being done? Ours. Is it being enacted because God wills us to enact it? If that's the case, then He's being contradictory. Why? Because if His stated will is that we avoid sexual immorality, but He also wills us to commit immorality when we do, then He is, quite literally, desiring that we do what He desires us not to do. This is dishonest . . . at best.
* * *
Okay, so I have much more to say on this, with many more passages of Scripture. For now I will close this out, but in the next part, I will be examining the passages that people often use to defend the non-existence of free will. We'll also look more in-depth at the difference between Biblical Sovereignty of God, and false Sovereignty of God.
And if you're interested in other passages that describe our ability to use the free will that God gave us, check out some of these:
II Chronicles 36:15-17
Psalm 95:7-11
Isaiah 5:1-7
Isaiah 10:5-12
Isaiah 42:23-25
Jeremiah 38:19-23
Ezekiel 16:16
Matthew 21:33-46
Mark 6:5-6
Luke 1:45
Luke 7:30
John 1:10-13
Acts 14:1-2
Acts 14:14-21
I Thess. 3:5
Jude 5-7
As always, if you have questions or comments, leave them in the space below!
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Pancake Poll
Hey! Haven't put up a food-related post in over a year, so I figured I'd add a quick poll (to the right) about pancake preferences! So pick your answer and let everybody know how you like your pancakes!
Monday, July 31, 2017
Ra and Sekhmet
Before there was land in Egypt, there was only Nun, the great ocean. Out of this ocean rose The Egg, and The Egg was Ra.
The omnipotent Ra took many forms, and spoke many names, and his power was such that whatever he spoke came into existence. "At dawn, I am Khepera. At noon, I am Ra. In the evening, I am Atum." The sun rose, passed through the sky, and set. It was the first day.
Then Ra created the winds, and named them Shu. Then Tefnut, the spitter, came, and it rained. Next he named Geb, and there was land; Nut, the goddess of the sky, stood on one side of the horizon, and placed her hands on the other. Then Ra named Hapi, and he watered all of Egypt with the Great Nile. After this, Ra named all living things on the earth, and, last of all, man.
Ra took the form of man and became the first Pharoah. He ruled over the land of Egypt for thousands of years. During his reign, the harvests were plentiful, so much so that people still use the phrase "which happened in the time of Ra" to describe good things.
Ra discovered, however, that as a man, he would grow old. As he aged, he discovered that men no longer feared him. They would laugh and say, "His bones are like silver, his flesh like gold, and his hair looks like lapis luzi!"
Though this angered Ra, people continued to do evil deeds. So Ra met with Shu, Tefnut, Nut, and Geb - all the gods he had made. Nun was also there, and Ra spoke to him. "Ancient One, creator of Ra, look on mankind. They plot against me, they are disobedient to my laws, and they mock my ancient wisdom, I who created the other gods. I wish to destroy them, but I will heed your advice first."
Nun replied, "Ra, destroy them with your daughter, Sekhmet."
The gods all answered, "Send Sekhmet against them!"
They all bowed their heads to the ground, and Ra said, "Even now, fear is seizing them as they hide in the desert."
So from the Eye of Ra, Sekhmet came, and her chief delight was in bloodshed. She laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt, pursuing them into the mountains, rushing along the Nile, and slaughtering them in the desert. When Ra looked out and saw what she had down, he was pleased, and asked, "Tell me what you did."
"By your will, I have avenged you. I am glad."
The Nile ran red with blood for many nights, and her feet were red, as one who presses grapes for wine, and Ra began to pity the men. Sekhmet, however, would not stop, and Ra himself had to resort to clever cunning in order to cease her slaughter.
Ra called for his messengers, and told them to go to Elephantine Island, in the First Cataract, and bring him red ochre. The messengers did so, bringing the ochre to the City of the Sun, where Ra lived. The women in city had spent all day brewing beer, according to the will of Ra, and when the messengers returned at night, Ra bade them to put the ochre into the beer. There were seven thousand jars.
"Take it to the place where Sekhmet plans her next slaughter." So they did, and they poured it out upon the fields. The liquid, which looked like blood, was thick upon the ground. As Sakhmet approached the next day, she saw the beer and thought it to be the blood of her victims. She laughed, roaring like a lioness, and stooped to drink. Over and over she drank, and soon she became drunk, unable to kill.
Reeling left and right, she came upon Ra, who named her Hathor. She was no longer violent, but peaceful and sweet, overcoming men and women with love, instead of death. Mankind was saved, and Ra continued to rule for a little while longer.
-Egypt
This week's myth offers us up the typical creation story of the great cosmic ocean, out of which comes a god/the gods. We find similar ideas in Mesopotamia, certain Native American tribes, the Hindu scriptures, and so on. But what is striking about this story is its similarity to a far-less compared story found in the Book of Exodus: the ten plagues.
We read in the story of Ra that Sekhmet "laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt," that "the Nile ran with blood," and that the whole of Egypt was perishing under Sekhmet's fury. In the Book of Exodus, we read: 'Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he goes out to the river. Confront him on the bank of the Nile, and take in your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.’”
As we continue to read, we find that plagues of frogs, gnats, boils, and other plagues strike the Egyptians, causing an economic nightmare. The final plague involves the death of all of the firstborn sons of Egypt. While the Bible is unclear how long all ten of these plagues lasted, it does make one thing clear: the land of Egypt was full of blood and death.
At this point, we may begin to see that the Egyptian belief in Sekhmet and the incidents of the Exodus may very well be parallel accounts. Both describe incidents which, at their cores, are very similar. While the causes certainly vary, the results do not. Now, I am not attempting to say that the story of Sekhmet is the Egyptian version of the Exodus plagues - not at all. However, from a logical standpoint, how likely is it that the Egyptians would tell a story of their own destruction at the hands of the Hebrew God? What seems far more likely is that they would invent a story that would refer to the real events, but through the interpretive lens of their own pagan beliefs. In other words, what I am suggesting is that, rather than disregard the Bible as so many do, we should be willing to take a fresh look at it and see how other literature parallels - and even supports - the Biblical account.
The omnipotent Ra took many forms, and spoke many names, and his power was such that whatever he spoke came into existence. "At dawn, I am Khepera. At noon, I am Ra. In the evening, I am Atum." The sun rose, passed through the sky, and set. It was the first day.
Then Ra created the winds, and named them Shu. Then Tefnut, the spitter, came, and it rained. Next he named Geb, and there was land; Nut, the goddess of the sky, stood on one side of the horizon, and placed her hands on the other. Then Ra named Hapi, and he watered all of Egypt with the Great Nile. After this, Ra named all living things on the earth, and, last of all, man.
Ra took the form of man and became the first Pharoah. He ruled over the land of Egypt for thousands of years. During his reign, the harvests were plentiful, so much so that people still use the phrase "which happened in the time of Ra" to describe good things.
Ra discovered, however, that as a man, he would grow old. As he aged, he discovered that men no longer feared him. They would laugh and say, "His bones are like silver, his flesh like gold, and his hair looks like lapis luzi!"
Though this angered Ra, people continued to do evil deeds. So Ra met with Shu, Tefnut, Nut, and Geb - all the gods he had made. Nun was also there, and Ra spoke to him. "Ancient One, creator of Ra, look on mankind. They plot against me, they are disobedient to my laws, and they mock my ancient wisdom, I who created the other gods. I wish to destroy them, but I will heed your advice first."
Nun replied, "Ra, destroy them with your daughter, Sekhmet."
The gods all answered, "Send Sekhmet against them!"
They all bowed their heads to the ground, and Ra said, "Even now, fear is seizing them as they hide in the desert."
So from the Eye of Ra, Sekhmet came, and her chief delight was in bloodshed. She laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt, pursuing them into the mountains, rushing along the Nile, and slaughtering them in the desert. When Ra looked out and saw what she had down, he was pleased, and asked, "Tell me what you did."
"By your will, I have avenged you. I am glad."
The Nile ran red with blood for many nights, and her feet were red, as one who presses grapes for wine, and Ra began to pity the men. Sekhmet, however, would not stop, and Ra himself had to resort to clever cunning in order to cease her slaughter.
Ra called for his messengers, and told them to go to Elephantine Island, in the First Cataract, and bring him red ochre. The messengers did so, bringing the ochre to the City of the Sun, where Ra lived. The women in city had spent all day brewing beer, according to the will of Ra, and when the messengers returned at night, Ra bade them to put the ochre into the beer. There were seven thousand jars.
"Take it to the place where Sekhmet plans her next slaughter." So they did, and they poured it out upon the fields. The liquid, which looked like blood, was thick upon the ground. As Sakhmet approached the next day, she saw the beer and thought it to be the blood of her victims. She laughed, roaring like a lioness, and stooped to drink. Over and over she drank, and soon she became drunk, unable to kill.
Reeling left and right, she came upon Ra, who named her Hathor. She was no longer violent, but peaceful and sweet, overcoming men and women with love, instead of death. Mankind was saved, and Ra continued to rule for a little while longer.
-Egypt
This week's myth offers us up the typical creation story of the great cosmic ocean, out of which comes a god/the gods. We find similar ideas in Mesopotamia, certain Native American tribes, the Hindu scriptures, and so on. But what is striking about this story is its similarity to a far-less compared story found in the Book of Exodus: the ten plagues.
We read in the story of Ra that Sekhmet "laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt," that "the Nile ran with blood," and that the whole of Egypt was perishing under Sekhmet's fury. In the Book of Exodus, we read: 'Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he goes out to the river. Confront him on the bank of the Nile, and take in your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.’”
As we continue to read, we find that plagues of frogs, gnats, boils, and other plagues strike the Egyptians, causing an economic nightmare. The final plague involves the death of all of the firstborn sons of Egypt. While the Bible is unclear how long all ten of these plagues lasted, it does make one thing clear: the land of Egypt was full of blood and death.
At this point, we may begin to see that the Egyptian belief in Sekhmet and the incidents of the Exodus may very well be parallel accounts. Both describe incidents which, at their cores, are very similar. While the causes certainly vary, the results do not. Now, I am not attempting to say that the story of Sekhmet is the Egyptian version of the Exodus plagues - not at all. However, from a logical standpoint, how likely is it that the Egyptians would tell a story of their own destruction at the hands of the Hebrew God? What seems far more likely is that they would invent a story that would refer to the real events, but through the interpretive lens of their own pagan beliefs. In other words, what I am suggesting is that, rather than disregard the Bible as so many do, we should be willing to take a fresh look at it and see how other literature parallels - and even supports - the Biblical account.
Friday, July 7, 2017
Water Into Wine
On the third
day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was
there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the
wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have
no more wine.”
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
-John 2:1-12, NIV Translation
When we look at this story of the Wedding at Cana, we have to ask ourselves the inevitable question: did this really happen? Now, obviously since none of us were there, we cannot say with certainty one way or the other. We may believe it happened or believe it couldn't have happened, but we cannot say for sure. We can, though, examine the evidence and decide if it's likely.
The first thing that is most striking about this story is that there are several witnesses to the event, and the town was actually named. Weddings were a remarkably large event in first-century Israel, often lasting a week and with hundreds of guests. Though it does not appear as if everyone there was aware of what happened, we do know that many of the servants "who had drawn the water knew [where the wine came from]." John, writing in the late first-century, was opening up his tale to much criticism, because witnesses can always be located, particularly if their location is outright named. Anyone doubting the validity of John's account could easily have gone to Cana (a real town) for him or herself and questioned the people. If the story were untrue, it is quite likely that it would have faded into oblivion, because no one would have been able to verify it. On the other hand, the story endured through the first century and on into the second century, with no evidence of contradiction. While this does not prove the event, it should make us pause and consider the implications.
One argument that is made quite often is the fact that the Gospel of John was written sometime in the second century by a Gentile, and not the Jewish Apostle John. This is highly unlikely, as we find that the author appears to be quite familiar with first-century Jewish customs. The practice of ceremonial washing (the purpose of the water in the story) was not observed by the Christian Church once it became predominantly Gentile (end of the first-century). A Gentile, then, writing a century (or two) after the fact would not be likely to have mentioned the jars at all. His or her water source would have been something more common to second century Roman culture. While it is possible that this detail was "added" for realism, it is highly unlikely, leading us to a relatively safe assumption that the author was, at the very least, Jewish. So we cannot conclude from this that it had to be John who penned the Gospel, but internal evidence does not rule him out as the author, either.
Lastly, we note a reluctance on the part of Jesus to even reveal His power. If Jesus were faking this, if He were merely a clever magician or a sleight-of-hand artist, then what we would find is, most likely, a deep and unyielding sense of showmanship. Think about modern entertainers today: David Copperfield, David Blaine, Criss Angel, even those of the last few decades (e.g., Doug Henning, Blackstone). They actively seek out individuals, they actively arrange for Las Vegas shows, television spots, and they actively promote their magic. They sell themselves as entertainers or supernatural beings, but they rarely, if ever, seem to hide from their talents. We find a startling humility in a man who claimed to be God. Does this prove His claim? No, but it should strike us as odd that a faker would be reluctant to fake.
What do we have? We have reasonable cause to believe that what we read in this portion of John may have actually occurred. We have reasonable assumptions that:
1) It was written during the time period in which it occurred by a witness
2) It occurred, not in a vacuum, but in front of many people in a real place
3) It was performed by someone who was not an entertainer looking to wow a crowd, but someone who was reluctant and reserved - in other words, a real person who performed a real miracle.
These are not concrete, nor are they airtight in their arguments. But, as with much ancient literature, we must approach with an examination of its pprobability, not with a denial of its possibility.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Still in Chains?
Over the last several months, I have been pondering a trend in our churches: that of calling believers in Christ "sinners." Listen to your own pastor, pull up any of the famous pastors on Youtube like Matt Chandler, John Piper, and the like, and you'll likely hear the same message preached over and over: you're a wretched sinner in need of the Gospel.
Now, in one sense, this is true. We still have the flesh, and the flesh is still subject to temptation. Paul says as much in several different letters:
Not that I have already obtained this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Jesus Christ took hold of me (Philippians 3:12).
Notice that Paul says he has not "already been made perfect."
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! (Romans 7:21-24).
What's he saying? That, even as he desires to obey God, he also finds the desire to sin in his body. So we see that in a real sense we do still struggle in the flesh, and we do still sin, but to stop our view of reality right there is to miss one of the most wonderful parts of the Gospel: we don't have to sin. Check out how Paul finishes his thought in Romans 7:
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! (24-25).
It doesn't end with the bad news of struggle with temptation. Who will rescue us from the struggle? Jesus Christ. But to end it here, too, is also incomplete. To throw our hands in the air whenever we sin and say, "Well, I struggle, but at least I'm saved!" is to also miss out on one of the points of redemption. Notice, throughout the Scriptures, how those who trust in God for salvation are described:
-Clean (Leviticus 16:30, John 15:3, Acts 10:15)
-White/Pure (Psalm 51:7, Isaiah 1:18, II Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 3:4)
-Holy (Exodus 31:13; Leviticus 11:44-45; Romans 6:19,22; Romans 11:16; Romans 12:1; II Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 5:3; I Thessalonians 3:13; II Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 12:10; Revelations 20:6)
-Anointed (I John 2:20;27)
"Anointed" comes from the terms "Christ" (Greek) and "Messiah" (Hebrew). When the Scriptures call us "anointed," they aren't saying that we are our own saviors, but they are saying that we are holy, separated for the work of God, and pronounced clean and righteous.
Now, what are we to say, then, about our sin? We do sin, but not because sin is still our "default" mode: one cannot be pronounced "clean" if one is still "dirty." If we still live in our old way of thinking - which is "futile," "foolish," and "wicked" - then we are not clean, pure, or holy. We do still sin, but not because we are "sinners in need of Grace" who are still so totally depraved that we often have no choice. If we're believers, this is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures and a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit. It sounds super-spiritual to call yourself a "wretched sinner," but it's unbiblical to leave it at that. Those who preach such things, and encourage their congregations to believe such things, are those who have a form of godliness but deny its power.
How do I know this? The Bible:
I want you to stress these things [see Titus 1:1 - 3:7], so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good (Titus 3:8).
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day (II Corinthians 4:16).
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2).
If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Behold, the old is gone, and the new has come! (II Corinthians 5:17).
For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:6-7).
In Titus, Paul is telling his friend that one can devote oneself to doing what is good. Therefore, to tell believers that their "default mode" is sin is anti-biblical. But if we still have the struggles of the flesh, how is it possible to devote oneself to doing good? Some days it does feel as if our default setting is sin, but only - I think - because we're being told it is. If we are in Christ, our new default mode is righteousness, and temptation becomes something we fight and resist, because it threatens to re-enslave us. But this begs the question: how is it possible to live sinless lives, if that's what I'm claiming the Bible tells us to do? It's possible because, inwardly, we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we are now new creations who are no longer slaves to sin, but have, rather, been freed from sin.
The wording Paul uses is unmistakable. II Corinthians 5:17 is present-tense: "The new has come," not "will come"; "the old is gone," not "the old will be gone." We are being renewed and transformed - if sin is still the default mode, then no transformation has occurred. "Our old self was crucified," Paul writes in Romans 6. That means it was put to death. So if your old self still rules your body, then it was never put to death with Christ. And if sin is still a default mode over which you have no control, then you're not "freed from sin." Or, you have been, but you just don't believe it, which is the central point of understanding here.
As with almost everything else with God, one of the main reasons we still sin is because we don't trust Him. We build up a theology in which God and God alone is responsible for our spiritual development, we build up a theology in which our natural, fallen minds are incapable of knowing God, and we develop a theology in which God does not take away our sin because He "has a plan and a purpose," and so, rather than trust that we can set aside sin in our lives, we continue on in our sin, making excuses. All of these views - all of them - are wrong.
To say that God refuses to take away our sin because He has a plan and purpose for it is to shift the responsibility of sin onto God. This is blasphemous, for God is neither tempted with sin, nor does He tempt us to sin (James 1:13). If we think about this for a moment, we realize that if God desires us to commit the very sins He commands us not to commit, then He is a liar. Right? If I tell my daughter not to throw a tantrum, but secretly desire that she does (because I "have a plan"), what would that make me? Untrustworthy, at best. So, no, to say that we still sin because God has a plan and purpose for it - and therefore refuses to keep us from stumbling - renders God untrustworthy.
To believe that sinning because it's our default mode, while also claiming to believe that God's call to obedience is sincere, is contradictory. And how do we worm around that? By claiming that God is so far above us, contradictions don't matter because we don't understand God. Yet to say that we are incapable of knowing God in our fallen, natural minds is to deny the words of Christ:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him . . . Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father . . . Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves" (John 14:6-7; 9; 11).
Can we know and understand everything about God? No, of course not, but to deny our ability to know God and what He has revealed about His character is to deny both the words of Christ, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit. To ask why God would still want us to sin, and answer it with, "our natural fallen minds can't be satisfied on this point" (as John Piper is fond of saying) is to, once more, commit blasphemy (yes, I did just accuse Piper of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. More on that in a later post). I want to repeat this, because this is a grievous thing to believe: if we say that God refuses to keep us from sinning because He has a "plan" for it is to blame God for our continual sin; don't do that!
God never, ever takes sole responsibility for a person's spiritual development. Why? Sort of like the first point, if He is solely responsible for our positive development, then that would make Him solely responsible for our spiritual failures. More than that, though, God commands His people in Leviticus not to sin, and He does so by giving them the Law, but it is they who have to trust Him and obey His teachings (see Leviticus 11:44-45; 18:1-5; 18:26-28; 18:30; 19:1-2; 19:3; 19:19; 19:37; 20:7-8; 20:22-24; 20:26; 22:31-33;26:3-4; 26:11-13; 26:14-17; 26:18-19; 26:21; 26:23-24; 26:27-28; 26:40-42; see also Deut. 26:16-19; 28:1-6; 28:9-10; 28:14; 28:15; 28:58-59; 30:1-6; 30:10; 30:11-20).
See the problem? God commands the Israelites to live holy lives, which means two things: He knows they can, and He wants them to. If either of these is untrue, then God is a liar. Deuteronomy 30 makes it even clearer: "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult or beyond your reach" (11). Some would say, "Well, He was talking about Jesus there." Nice thought, but He wasn't; He was addressing the nation of Israel, the nation to whom He had just given a great deal of commands. In no way, shape, or form, do we see God saying, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult or beyond your reach because of something coming in the future." God enters into a covenant with Israel, giving them the outline of holiness, and telling them that obedience is "not too difficult or beyond [their] reach." Notice, they weren't obedient - I'm not claiming they were - but their disobedience was because they had full control of their faculties, and used them for evil, rather than obedience.
At this point, the charge of "legalism" usually gets thrown about, as if obeying - and desiring to obey - God is disdainful. Somehow, God's commands have been relegated to rules by which we shouldn't live, as if He gave the Law because He didn't want people to obey it. Again, that would make Him untrustworthy, for how could we ever hope to know which commands He wants us to obey, and which ones He wants us to disobey? This makes God double-minded.
"But Christ did away with the Law!"
Yes, He did, but He didn't do away with obedience. You see, when Christ came and brought the New Covenant, He entered into the same type of agreement as the Law:
If you love Me, keep My commands. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I in you. Whoever has My commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love them and show Myself to them. . . .
"Anyone who loves Me will obey My teaching. My Father will love them, and We will come to them and make Our home in them. Anyone who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father Who sent Me" (John 14:15-21; 23-24).
Same type of covenant, isn't it? The difference is that we are no longer under the Law, for Jesus' sacrificial death was the final sacrifice needed to take away sins once and for all (see Hebrews). The sacrifices of the Law did take away sins, but only until the person sinned again (e.g., Leviticus 4:26; Hebrews 10:1-18). Jesus' life, death, and resurrection became an everlasting covenant that cannot be undone, not even by sin. Yet . . . the requirements of personal responsibility are undeniably present. In just nine verses, Jesus tells His disciples three different times that anyone who loves Him will obey His commands, and He tells them once that those who do not obey do not love. That's almost half - almost half of the verses deal with the relationship between our love for Him and our obedience to His commands. Now, obviously, one of His commands is to trust Him (see John 6:1-40), but His commands don't stop there, so neither should our obedience, and Jesus is clear that our obedience is tied directly to whether or not we love Him.
John says the same thing in his first letter:
We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands. The man who says, "I know Him," but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the Truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did (I John 2:3-6).
That is a covenant: a relational agreement between two parties. Now, we can talk about grace and faith versus works, we can discuss James 2:24, and so on - and maybe we will in another post - but for the purposes of this post, let's stop and think for a moment. Does Jesus say, "If you love Me, I will make sure you never sin again"? Nope. Does Jesus say, "If you love Me, I will still sometimes cause you to sin, in order to make you dependent on Me?" Absolutely not! Does He say, "Once I come to you and make My home in you, I will know you love Me, even if you don't obey"? Nope. Jesus is clear: obedience is our responsibility, and it is tied directly to whether or not we love Him. Now we do still sin, which is why His death is so enormously glorious, but Jesus is reiterating what we read in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Titus, Romans, II Corinthians, and so on: we don't have to. We still do, but that is only because we don't trust one of God's most important promises in all of Scripture, I Corinthians 10:13:
God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it (13).
Check out the first part of the verse: "He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear." God knows our boundaries, He knows our weaknesses, and He knows what we can endure. God allows us to be tempted, but He sets the parameters in which Satan must act. Why? Well, if we are able to bear whatever temptation we are facing at that moment, then those parameters are obviously put there in order for us to "stand up under it." We see this play out in the story of Job.
One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger" (Job 1:6-12).
God gave Satan permission to do whatever he wanted, but He set parameters and boundaries, boundaries which Satan was not allowed to cross. The result?
In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing (1:22).
If you know the story, you know that in the next few verses, Satan comes back, and this time God widens the parameters a bit. I suppose this is a bit of speculation, but I believe that God's parameters are set where they are at the beginning because He knows at what point Job will not stand and, once Job perseveres and his faith increases, God allows the temptation to hit a little closer to home, become a little more intense, because He knows Job's limits of endurance have expanded a bit.
Which means He knows where your limits are, too. When you are facing that temptation, whatever it is, you can know that God does not want you to fail, and He is faithful to provide a way out. The positive side, of course, is that this means that you do not have to sin. The negative side? If you do, it's because you willingly chose to ignore that way out (not because it's your "default" mode). My advice - and I have to give this to myself, too - is to repent, turn, and remind yourself of God's promises every single day. Need a real world example, something beyond speculation and theological niceties?
I don't discuss it regularly, but I haven't exactly hidden the fact that lustful thoughts are an enormous struggle with me, a struggle whose roots go very, very deep. As such, these thoughts have physically, emotionally, and mentally manifested themselves in various ways over the years, and while I may be able to deal with many of these side effects, dealing with the main issue was never on my radar. Why? Because I believed the lie that I'm a guy, and it's what we do; I believed I was imprisoned by my own gender in this regard. "God made me visually in-tune to women, so it's just who I am." That's a lie that ultimately blames God for my sin, and denies any possibility of obedience.
But we are, if we are in Christ, set free from sin, and so I resolved to trust God at His Word and to actually look for the way out the next time I was faced with the temptation to lust. I must be honest, it was touch and go for a while. Sometimes I withstood, sometimes I didn't, but each time I did withstand, my faith in God and His promise was strengthened, and I was much more likely to withstand the next time. And so, gradually, I began to walk free - not just from the physical manifestations of sin, but from the sin itself.
Then, one day, I was taking my daughter to the grocery store. As we approached the glass doors, I could see the person coming out of the store, and she was alarmingly attractive. It wasn't even a matter of make-up and fancy clothes - I think she had on jeans and a flannel shirt, or something like that, and she may not have even been wearing make-up. But looking through the glass, I couldn't help but notice how naturally stunning she was.
It was then that I had a choice. I could move from noticing (impossible to prevent, since I can see) to thinking (very possible to prevent), or I could look for the way out that God promised. I decided to look for the way out, because walking free and following Christ was becoming more important. You know what happened? At that moment, I noticed how horribly I had brushed and combed my daughter's hair. You see, after nearly four years of brushing my daughter's hair, I honestly still have no idea how to style a little girl's hair; I'm miserable at it.
But, thank God, I suddenly had something upon which I could focus, and my daughter's crooked hairline became the most interesting thing in the world to me. Man, did I study her hair, every unkempt strand. And, eventually, the temptation to lust was gone. Now, many would read this and say, "Oh, you're just being self-righteous!" But that's because we only have two options in our churches: be sinners who happen to be saved (but still trapped in sin), or be obedient because we're self-righteous and legalistic. Listen, both of these are wicked ideas and condemned by the Scriptures.
Which is why we find the third option - the one few people ever talk about - in so many pages of the Bible: it's entirely possible to walk in obedience, because Christ has saved you. Whatever righteousness I may have had in my body died when I devoted my life to sin. But now . . .
. . . I have the righteousness of Christ, given to me by being born again of the Spirit. Now, I am a new creation, set free from sin by Jesus Christ - and if Christ has set me free, then I will be free indeed.
I didn't fall to temptation because falling is my default mode; I resisted. However, I didn't resist temptation that day because I'm self-sufficiently righteous, either. No, no, no, I resisted temptation because I resolved to, and God provided the way out. The "sinner saved" doesn't resist, just feels bad about it later and resolves to do better next time (but rarely, if ever, does). The "self-righteous saint" thinks he or she resisted because of some sort of inner strength and holiness, completely apart from God. But if we revisit I Corinthians 10:13, we see Paul promising that 1) We have the strength to endure what God allows to come our way, and 2) He provides a way out. This is the "relationship" aspect of relationship: both parties are involved. God willingly - faithfully, as Paul puts it - provides us a way out, and limits the boundaries of our temptation, but we have to willingly stand up against it and take His way out.
So when we sin, it's not because we are too weak, it's because we simply don't trust. When we sin, it's not because He is faithless and leaves us to face our temptations alone. We don't trust that God's way is better, we don't trust that He is setting parameters around our temptation, and we don't trust that He has provided a way out. Just like Abram pimping out his wife, we fear that God's promises won't be fulfilled. Just like Lot's wife, we fear that missing out on this world will leave us empty and hollow. Just like Judas, we fear that God can't meet our expectations. But God - praise Him! - always keeps His promises, His Will is always better than the way of the world, and God far exceeds our expectations, if we trust He is Who He says He is. This is also good news for when we do sin, because He says He is faithful to forgive, because of the work of Christ. However, the fruit we bear for Christ should never be bad fruit, and Christ has given us everything we need to bear constant and consistent good fruit.
So don't believe the lie that you are still in a default sin mode; that view keeps you enslaved to your sin. Don't believe the lie that sometimes temptations are just more than you can handle; that denies the promise of God to never allow you to be tempted beyond what you can endure. By all means, eagerly await the day when your body will be made whole and you will no longer have this flesh to contend with, but do not deny the fact that you are already a new creation; this denies the Word of God, which tells us that the old way of sin is gone, and the New has come.
I do not write this to you to make you feel guilt and shame over your lack of trust in these areas. The Bible is very clear that Christians still sin. My point here is that when we do, it's not because we're still wretched sinners - it's because we momentarily stop trusting God. Yet we can, even today, forget what is behind, and press on to what is ahead. No, brothers and sisters,
I write all of this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:1-2).
Now, in one sense, this is true. We still have the flesh, and the flesh is still subject to temptation. Paul says as much in several different letters:
Not that I have already obtained this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Jesus Christ took hold of me (Philippians 3:12).
Notice that Paul says he has not "already been made perfect."
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! (Romans 7:21-24).
What's he saying? That, even as he desires to obey God, he also finds the desire to sin in his body. So we see that in a real sense we do still struggle in the flesh, and we do still sin, but to stop our view of reality right there is to miss one of the most wonderful parts of the Gospel: we don't have to sin. Check out how Paul finishes his thought in Romans 7:
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! (24-25).
It doesn't end with the bad news of struggle with temptation. Who will rescue us from the struggle? Jesus Christ. But to end it here, too, is also incomplete. To throw our hands in the air whenever we sin and say, "Well, I struggle, but at least I'm saved!" is to also miss out on one of the points of redemption. Notice, throughout the Scriptures, how those who trust in God for salvation are described:
-Clean (Leviticus 16:30, John 15:3, Acts 10:15)
-White/Pure (Psalm 51:7, Isaiah 1:18, II Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 3:4)
-Holy (Exodus 31:13; Leviticus 11:44-45; Romans 6:19,22; Romans 11:16; Romans 12:1; II Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 5:3; I Thessalonians 3:13; II Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 12:10; Revelations 20:6)
-Anointed (I John 2:20;27)
"Anointed" comes from the terms "Christ" (Greek) and "Messiah" (Hebrew). When the Scriptures call us "anointed," they aren't saying that we are our own saviors, but they are saying that we are holy, separated for the work of God, and pronounced clean and righteous.
Now, what are we to say, then, about our sin? We do sin, but not because sin is still our "default" mode: one cannot be pronounced "clean" if one is still "dirty." If we still live in our old way of thinking - which is "futile," "foolish," and "wicked" - then we are not clean, pure, or holy. We do still sin, but not because we are "sinners in need of Grace" who are still so totally depraved that we often have no choice. If we're believers, this is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures and a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit. It sounds super-spiritual to call yourself a "wretched sinner," but it's unbiblical to leave it at that. Those who preach such things, and encourage their congregations to believe such things, are those who have a form of godliness but deny its power.
How do I know this? The Bible:
I want you to stress these things [see Titus 1:1 - 3:7], so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good (Titus 3:8).
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day (II Corinthians 4:16).
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2).
If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Behold, the old is gone, and the new has come! (II Corinthians 5:17).
For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:6-7).
In Titus, Paul is telling his friend that one can devote oneself to doing what is good. Therefore, to tell believers that their "default mode" is sin is anti-biblical. But if we still have the struggles of the flesh, how is it possible to devote oneself to doing good? Some days it does feel as if our default setting is sin, but only - I think - because we're being told it is. If we are in Christ, our new default mode is righteousness, and temptation becomes something we fight and resist, because it threatens to re-enslave us. But this begs the question: how is it possible to live sinless lives, if that's what I'm claiming the Bible tells us to do? It's possible because, inwardly, we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we are now new creations who are no longer slaves to sin, but have, rather, been freed from sin.
The wording Paul uses is unmistakable. II Corinthians 5:17 is present-tense: "The new has come," not "will come"; "the old is gone," not "the old will be gone." We are being renewed and transformed - if sin is still the default mode, then no transformation has occurred. "Our old self was crucified," Paul writes in Romans 6. That means it was put to death. So if your old self still rules your body, then it was never put to death with Christ. And if sin is still a default mode over which you have no control, then you're not "freed from sin." Or, you have been, but you just don't believe it, which is the central point of understanding here.
As with almost everything else with God, one of the main reasons we still sin is because we don't trust Him. We build up a theology in which God and God alone is responsible for our spiritual development, we build up a theology in which our natural, fallen minds are incapable of knowing God, and we develop a theology in which God does not take away our sin because He "has a plan and a purpose," and so, rather than trust that we can set aside sin in our lives, we continue on in our sin, making excuses. All of these views - all of them - are wrong.
To say that God refuses to take away our sin because He has a plan and purpose for it is to shift the responsibility of sin onto God. This is blasphemous, for God is neither tempted with sin, nor does He tempt us to sin (James 1:13). If we think about this for a moment, we realize that if God desires us to commit the very sins He commands us not to commit, then He is a liar. Right? If I tell my daughter not to throw a tantrum, but secretly desire that she does (because I "have a plan"), what would that make me? Untrustworthy, at best. So, no, to say that we still sin because God has a plan and purpose for it - and therefore refuses to keep us from stumbling - renders God untrustworthy.
To believe that sinning because it's our default mode, while also claiming to believe that God's call to obedience is sincere, is contradictory. And how do we worm around that? By claiming that God is so far above us, contradictions don't matter because we don't understand God. Yet to say that we are incapable of knowing God in our fallen, natural minds is to deny the words of Christ:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him . . . Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father . . . Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves" (John 14:6-7; 9; 11).
Can we know and understand everything about God? No, of course not, but to deny our ability to know God and what He has revealed about His character is to deny both the words of Christ, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit. To ask why God would still want us to sin, and answer it with, "our natural fallen minds can't be satisfied on this point" (as John Piper is fond of saying) is to, once more, commit blasphemy (yes, I did just accuse Piper of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. More on that in a later post). I want to repeat this, because this is a grievous thing to believe: if we say that God refuses to keep us from sinning because He has a "plan" for it is to blame God for our continual sin; don't do that!
God never, ever takes sole responsibility for a person's spiritual development. Why? Sort of like the first point, if He is solely responsible for our positive development, then that would make Him solely responsible for our spiritual failures. More than that, though, God commands His people in Leviticus not to sin, and He does so by giving them the Law, but it is they who have to trust Him and obey His teachings (see Leviticus 11:44-45; 18:1-5; 18:26-28; 18:30; 19:1-2; 19:3; 19:19; 19:37; 20:7-8; 20:22-24; 20:26; 22:31-33;26:3-4; 26:11-13; 26:14-17; 26:18-19; 26:21; 26:23-24; 26:27-28; 26:40-42; see also Deut. 26:16-19; 28:1-6; 28:9-10; 28:14; 28:15; 28:58-59; 30:1-6; 30:10; 30:11-20).
See the problem? God commands the Israelites to live holy lives, which means two things: He knows they can, and He wants them to. If either of these is untrue, then God is a liar. Deuteronomy 30 makes it even clearer: "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult or beyond your reach" (11). Some would say, "Well, He was talking about Jesus there." Nice thought, but He wasn't; He was addressing the nation of Israel, the nation to whom He had just given a great deal of commands. In no way, shape, or form, do we see God saying, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult or beyond your reach because of something coming in the future." God enters into a covenant with Israel, giving them the outline of holiness, and telling them that obedience is "not too difficult or beyond [their] reach." Notice, they weren't obedient - I'm not claiming they were - but their disobedience was because they had full control of their faculties, and used them for evil, rather than obedience.
At this point, the charge of "legalism" usually gets thrown about, as if obeying - and desiring to obey - God is disdainful. Somehow, God's commands have been relegated to rules by which we shouldn't live, as if He gave the Law because He didn't want people to obey it. Again, that would make Him untrustworthy, for how could we ever hope to know which commands He wants us to obey, and which ones He wants us to disobey? This makes God double-minded.
"But Christ did away with the Law!"
Yes, He did, but He didn't do away with obedience. You see, when Christ came and brought the New Covenant, He entered into the same type of agreement as the Law:
If you love Me, keep My commands. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I in you. Whoever has My commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love them and show Myself to them. . . .
"Anyone who loves Me will obey My teaching. My Father will love them, and We will come to them and make Our home in them. Anyone who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father Who sent Me" (John 14:15-21; 23-24).
Same type of covenant, isn't it? The difference is that we are no longer under the Law, for Jesus' sacrificial death was the final sacrifice needed to take away sins once and for all (see Hebrews). The sacrifices of the Law did take away sins, but only until the person sinned again (e.g., Leviticus 4:26; Hebrews 10:1-18). Jesus' life, death, and resurrection became an everlasting covenant that cannot be undone, not even by sin. Yet . . . the requirements of personal responsibility are undeniably present. In just nine verses, Jesus tells His disciples three different times that anyone who loves Him will obey His commands, and He tells them once that those who do not obey do not love. That's almost half - almost half of the verses deal with the relationship between our love for Him and our obedience to His commands. Now, obviously, one of His commands is to trust Him (see John 6:1-40), but His commands don't stop there, so neither should our obedience, and Jesus is clear that our obedience is tied directly to whether or not we love Him.
John says the same thing in his first letter:
We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands. The man who says, "I know Him," but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the Truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did (I John 2:3-6).
That is a covenant: a relational agreement between two parties. Now, we can talk about grace and faith versus works, we can discuss James 2:24, and so on - and maybe we will in another post - but for the purposes of this post, let's stop and think for a moment. Does Jesus say, "If you love Me, I will make sure you never sin again"? Nope. Does Jesus say, "If you love Me, I will still sometimes cause you to sin, in order to make you dependent on Me?" Absolutely not! Does He say, "Once I come to you and make My home in you, I will know you love Me, even if you don't obey"? Nope. Jesus is clear: obedience is our responsibility, and it is tied directly to whether or not we love Him. Now we do still sin, which is why His death is so enormously glorious, but Jesus is reiterating what we read in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Titus, Romans, II Corinthians, and so on: we don't have to. We still do, but that is only because we don't trust one of God's most important promises in all of Scripture, I Corinthians 10:13:
God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it (13).
Check out the first part of the verse: "He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear." God knows our boundaries, He knows our weaknesses, and He knows what we can endure. God allows us to be tempted, but He sets the parameters in which Satan must act. Why? Well, if we are able to bear whatever temptation we are facing at that moment, then those parameters are obviously put there in order for us to "stand up under it." We see this play out in the story of Job.
One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger" (Job 1:6-12).
God gave Satan permission to do whatever he wanted, but He set parameters and boundaries, boundaries which Satan was not allowed to cross. The result?
In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing (1:22).
If you know the story, you know that in the next few verses, Satan comes back, and this time God widens the parameters a bit. I suppose this is a bit of speculation, but I believe that God's parameters are set where they are at the beginning because He knows at what point Job will not stand and, once Job perseveres and his faith increases, God allows the temptation to hit a little closer to home, become a little more intense, because He knows Job's limits of endurance have expanded a bit.
Which means He knows where your limits are, too. When you are facing that temptation, whatever it is, you can know that God does not want you to fail, and He is faithful to provide a way out. The positive side, of course, is that this means that you do not have to sin. The negative side? If you do, it's because you willingly chose to ignore that way out (not because it's your "default" mode). My advice - and I have to give this to myself, too - is to repent, turn, and remind yourself of God's promises every single day. Need a real world example, something beyond speculation and theological niceties?
I don't discuss it regularly, but I haven't exactly hidden the fact that lustful thoughts are an enormous struggle with me, a struggle whose roots go very, very deep. As such, these thoughts have physically, emotionally, and mentally manifested themselves in various ways over the years, and while I may be able to deal with many of these side effects, dealing with the main issue was never on my radar. Why? Because I believed the lie that I'm a guy, and it's what we do; I believed I was imprisoned by my own gender in this regard. "God made me visually in-tune to women, so it's just who I am." That's a lie that ultimately blames God for my sin, and denies any possibility of obedience.
But we are, if we are in Christ, set free from sin, and so I resolved to trust God at His Word and to actually look for the way out the next time I was faced with the temptation to lust. I must be honest, it was touch and go for a while. Sometimes I withstood, sometimes I didn't, but each time I did withstand, my faith in God and His promise was strengthened, and I was much more likely to withstand the next time. And so, gradually, I began to walk free - not just from the physical manifestations of sin, but from the sin itself.
Then, one day, I was taking my daughter to the grocery store. As we approached the glass doors, I could see the person coming out of the store, and she was alarmingly attractive. It wasn't even a matter of make-up and fancy clothes - I think she had on jeans and a flannel shirt, or something like that, and she may not have even been wearing make-up. But looking through the glass, I couldn't help but notice how naturally stunning she was.
It was then that I had a choice. I could move from noticing (impossible to prevent, since I can see) to thinking (very possible to prevent), or I could look for the way out that God promised. I decided to look for the way out, because walking free and following Christ was becoming more important. You know what happened? At that moment, I noticed how horribly I had brushed and combed my daughter's hair. You see, after nearly four years of brushing my daughter's hair, I honestly still have no idea how to style a little girl's hair; I'm miserable at it.
But, thank God, I suddenly had something upon which I could focus, and my daughter's crooked hairline became the most interesting thing in the world to me. Man, did I study her hair, every unkempt strand. And, eventually, the temptation to lust was gone. Now, many would read this and say, "Oh, you're just being self-righteous!" But that's because we only have two options in our churches: be sinners who happen to be saved (but still trapped in sin), or be obedient because we're self-righteous and legalistic. Listen, both of these are wicked ideas and condemned by the Scriptures.
Which is why we find the third option - the one few people ever talk about - in so many pages of the Bible: it's entirely possible to walk in obedience, because Christ has saved you. Whatever righteousness I may have had in my body died when I devoted my life to sin. But now . . .
. . . I have the righteousness of Christ, given to me by being born again of the Spirit. Now, I am a new creation, set free from sin by Jesus Christ - and if Christ has set me free, then I will be free indeed.
I didn't fall to temptation because falling is my default mode; I resisted. However, I didn't resist temptation that day because I'm self-sufficiently righteous, either. No, no, no, I resisted temptation because I resolved to, and God provided the way out. The "sinner saved" doesn't resist, just feels bad about it later and resolves to do better next time (but rarely, if ever, does). The "self-righteous saint" thinks he or she resisted because of some sort of inner strength and holiness, completely apart from God. But if we revisit I Corinthians 10:13, we see Paul promising that 1) We have the strength to endure what God allows to come our way, and 2) He provides a way out. This is the "relationship" aspect of relationship: both parties are involved. God willingly - faithfully, as Paul puts it - provides us a way out, and limits the boundaries of our temptation, but we have to willingly stand up against it and take His way out.
So when we sin, it's not because we are too weak, it's because we simply don't trust. When we sin, it's not because He is faithless and leaves us to face our temptations alone. We don't trust that God's way is better, we don't trust that He is setting parameters around our temptation, and we don't trust that He has provided a way out. Just like Abram pimping out his wife, we fear that God's promises won't be fulfilled. Just like Lot's wife, we fear that missing out on this world will leave us empty and hollow. Just like Judas, we fear that God can't meet our expectations. But God - praise Him! - always keeps His promises, His Will is always better than the way of the world, and God far exceeds our expectations, if we trust He is Who He says He is. This is also good news for when we do sin, because He says He is faithful to forgive, because of the work of Christ. However, the fruit we bear for Christ should never be bad fruit, and Christ has given us everything we need to bear constant and consistent good fruit.
So don't believe the lie that you are still in a default sin mode; that view keeps you enslaved to your sin. Don't believe the lie that sometimes temptations are just more than you can handle; that denies the promise of God to never allow you to be tempted beyond what you can endure. By all means, eagerly await the day when your body will be made whole and you will no longer have this flesh to contend with, but do not deny the fact that you are already a new creation; this denies the Word of God, which tells us that the old way of sin is gone, and the New has come.
I do not write this to you to make you feel guilt and shame over your lack of trust in these areas. The Bible is very clear that Christians still sin. My point here is that when we do, it's not because we're still wretched sinners - it's because we momentarily stop trusting God. Yet we can, even today, forget what is behind, and press on to what is ahead. No, brothers and sisters,
I write all of this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:1-2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)