Disputable Matters

I did two blog-worthy things tonight that kind of ran into each other.

First, I read through the end of Romans (chapters 13-16).

Second, I had a long argument with someone about various things, including the concept of the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God, and that the Bible is in fact the Word of God.

Needless to say the argument frustrated me very much on multiple fronts.

Its kind of funny that I was reading through Romans 14 and 15 as we started talking about these other things, especially where it says "accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" and "accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God".

Some notes in Romans 15 said this as well: "Can Christians agree on everything? No. But the goal is not to think alike or avoid all disagreements. The goal is to glorify God. It is very important to carefully distinguish between absolutes, personal convictions, and personal preferences. We can strive for a unity in Christ that supersedes our different preferences and personalities. Our differences need not divide us -- in fact, our diversity can enable us to multiply our praise and service for God."

This all made me wonder what constitutes a "disputable matter" and where the line is between applying acceptance/tolerance and standing firm.

When Paul wrote this part of Romans, he was only talking about whether or not it was okay to eat certain foods. We're talking about something a little more at the core of Christianity here.

The doctrine of the deity of Christ is very core, and so is the doctrine of monotheism. I don't see how it is possible at all to believe in the deity of Christ (i.e. that Jesus is God in the flesh) and in monotheism without accepting the Trinity! You cannot be a created being and still be God.

So I don't think this is a "disputable matter".

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is less core, but its still pretty important. Truth does matter. God's revelation does matter. If the Bible is not reliable, then what do we base our beliefs in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit on? Whatever we choose to make up? Whatever we take from the Bible that we like, ignoring the things we don't like? Absolutely not! The Bible's message must be taken as a whole. My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ asks for trust, and that includes trust in what He says in His Word. Not liking something in the Bible is a bad reason to say that you don't accept it. God judges us, not the the other way around. The same should go for His Word.

So I don't think this is a "disputable matter" either.

"Disputable matters" today seem to be things more like drinking, smoking, clothing, dancing, acceptable movies, day(s) of worship, birth control, etc, and not key points of Christian doctrine.

Now does that mean that if two people are on opposite sides of this argument, one of them won't be saved because they got part of it wrong? I don't think so, as long as the have truly repented from their sins and have truly accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If that is really true, does that also mean that we should just allow people to continue to hold incorrect opinions about key doctrines without correcting them? I don't think so either.

As Paul says in 2 Timothy "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". So as I see it from what I have read in the Bible so far, we should correct those who are out of line with key doctrines, but we must do it as an act of love, not an act of condemnation.

This is very difficult for me to do well at times, especially when the Bible itself is the source of the disagreement! I find that I fail so miserably in the area of calmly and graciously presenting the truth at times, especially to those who are already steadfast in opposing beliefs. All I can do is apologize to God for my failure and ask Him to help me do better the next time around.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you reader.

What's A Christian?

The word "Christian" appears to have lost a lot of significance over the years and is used by people who don't really believe in or trust in Jesus Christ, but consider themselves to be Christian anyway just because they go to church or live in a "Christian" country.

Let's set the record straight.

Going to church does not make someone a Christian. Giving money to a church does not make someone a Christian. Being a "good person" does not make someone a Christian. Serving others does not make someone a Christian. Following a fixed set of rules for moral behavior does not make someone a Christian. Having Christian family members does not make someone a Christian.

A Christian is someone who has repented of his or her sins, has truly put their faith in Jesus Christ alone, and has been born-again by God.

If someone has truly repented, has put their faith in Jesus Christ alone, and has been born-again by God, they will bear good fruit. That good fruit includes going to church, giving money to support their local church, being a "good person", serving others, living a moral lifestyle, and so on. These are the things that come from being a Christian, not the things that make one a Christian.

Eternal Punishment

I think there are a lot of people these days who have a big problem with the concept of hell and eternal punishment, and don't talk about it, or the seriousness of sin. They choose to pick and choose a more palatable picture of God the Father and the gospel of Jesus Christ, ignoring these very important things.

Watering down or altering what the Word of God says can never be helpful in the end, so let's have a look at what's what.

First, let's talk about the purpose of man. Man was not created just to live out life and enjoy it for no good reason. Man was not created because God was bored or lonely. Man was created to glorify God. God could have created robot-people to glorify Him, or He could have created people with free choice to glorify Him. I think its a no-brainer that He did the latter. Would you feel more love from a robot that did nice things for you because it was programmed to do so, or from a human being that could choose not to do those nice things, but did them anyway? An act of love only has value if there is an option to choose not to do the act!

Second, let's talk about the nature of man. There is a habit of painting man as generally good. Yes, there are a lot of "good people" by the standards of men, but we are still all in the same boat by the standards of God. We are all sinners in His eyes, and without His grace, we rebel against Him and become slaves to sin. Even the good things we would do would be tainted by sin, because they would only be done for some man-centered motive. In short, on our own, we don't do our job to glorify God -- we take our free choice and make choices that glorify ourselves.

That might not seem right to some. Why did God create us but make us sinners? He didn't. He gives us the choice, and we screw it up. He gave Adam and Eve the first choice, and they screwed it up. Is it that hard to believe that sin has tainted us, and we by nature now will choose something against God? Do we actually have to teach our children to be greedy? To not share? To lie? To be ungrateful because of one little thing in the face of all the blessings they have? No, certainly not! They figure that out all on their own, and we (should) teach them the exact opposite.

Third, let's talk about the nature of God. There is a habit of painting God as this loving old guy with a white beard whose love for use overrides all his other attributes. Yes, God is merciful, God is kind, and God loves us; however, God is also holy and righteous, and He will not tolerate sin. He hates it. Wickedness makes God very angry, and there are limits to His patience and mercy.

That might not seem right to some. Why did God create us and then hate a lot of what we do? Is it really so hard to believe? He nearly destroyed the world once because of His hatred for sin. Why would he have a more lax attitude to it now? If He were to be so merciful that people could get to heaven by just by being "a good person" according to man's standards, even while still rejecting Him and not glorifying Him in any way, then Jesus Christ died for nothing.

In short, we have a job to do. We don't do it. Instead, we do what God hates. That makes God angry. Since He is a just God, He must punish us for it; however, since He is also a loving and merciful God, He offers us a way out of this terrible predicament through the atoning sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. If we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we're good. Not just Savior. Lord and Savior.

Let's assume we reject the offer, since that gets us to the point of this post. Why should we expect eternal punishment? Well, given God is an eternal and infinite being, there can be nothing less. He is outside of time, and the sin He hates would be before Him for all eternity. To satisfy His holy justice, our punishment must also be for all eternity.

Now what if people have never heard about the offer? That depends. Are these people seeking God, or not? Jesus said that those who ask will receive and that those who seek will find. I trust that God is a perfect judge of all men, and I also trust that He is big enough to help out those who earnestly seek Him. Depending on the answer, the "what if" question here could prevent people from spreading the gospel message, or it could block people's spiritual growth because its a tough one to get past. Let's not let it do either for us personally, and leave these really difficult answers in God's hands.

You'd think that this eternal punishment thing would be a good deterrent, wouldn't you? Many don't believe it, so the idea is completely rejected or watered down. People can't really do that and still line up with what the Bible says. People can try, but then they're ignoring scripture and just picking and choosing what they like -- with no basis for it other than their own rationalization.

So in the end, don't reject the offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, and don't water down the reality of hell or God's complete hatred for sin because its distasteful.

Leviticus 26

We just finished Leviticus. Its quite the read. There was some skimming involved; however, when we got to chapter 26, I had to stop and re-read it. Its all about reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience.

The punishment caught my eye more, because its not some general, vague punishment, but rather a list of ever-increasing curses for the Israelites if they didn't listen to God.

Looking at the big picture from when the Israelites entered the promised land to their exile, its blatantly obvious that those curses that were mentioned happened. I think Daniel specifically points this out, but I haven't read that far yet! :-)

I just think its really cool how much the different books of the Bible really do tie together. Here we have God way back when telling people exactly what's going to happen if they do XYZ (and what's going to happen next if they keep doing it, etc). Then you have a pile of books that show the people not listening, getting into trouble, and eventually being conquered and exiled. Then you have guys later saying "see, God told us that was going to happen".

You would think at some point, these guys would have gotten a clue and changed their tune, yes? Maybe not. I can still remember being a kid. "If you do that, you're going to get your name on the board, then sit out at recess, then go to the office, etc". You know what? We did the same stupid crap anyway -- despite knowing the consequences.

We're not a bright lot sometimes!

Thanks Giving

I heard a couple of great talks on thanks recently by David Jeremiah (from his "growing in the grace of gratitude" series) and I wanted to sum up the two major themes I got out of them.

The first major theme is that we really should be in a state of continual thanks giving for all things -- not just when things are going well for us (though it is so much easier to do so during those times) -- but everyday, for everything.

Why should we be in a state of continual thanks giving, especially when it looks like things aren't going so well for us? How about for the many gifts our Father in heaven has given us, especially for the ultimate gift of His Son, Jesus Christ? In the grand scheme of things, what problems in this world are so great that they should overshadow the death and resurrection of Jesus and the promise of eternal life? No matter what, we always have something to be grateful for.

Sometimes I get so focused on myself and my own insignificant problems that I fail to see how much in my life there really is to be thankful for. Jamie. Kids. Life. Health. Job. Friends. Home. Freedom. Church. God. And so much more. There are so many people without a spouse to lean on, or without children to love and nurture, or are dying, or are crippled, or are unemployed, or have no friends, or are homeless, or are persecuted, or have not experienced the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. So only by the grace of God do I have so many good things in my life than this to be thankful for, and I really should be thanking Him every second of every day for the rest of my life. Even if somehow I could, it would not be enough.

The second major theme is that it is okay to be thankful for and be happy with what we have been given, in spite of the pain around us.

There are many, myself included at times, who feel miserable because of, instead of thankful for, the blessings in our lives because there are always those who are worse off. We have food, but there are many who are starving. We have shelter, but there are many who are homeless. We have health, but there are many who lay dying. We have freedom, but there are many under an iron fist. We have the truth, but many are blind to it.

What good is it to feel so much guilt and be miserable? What hope can we offer people by reacting this way? Do we say "Here is the gospel, its great! Until you follow it, then you'll be miserable too." No, that is not right. Gratitude is the choice we must make, even in spite of the pain and suffering around us.

Why? Lewis Smedes puts it roughly this way:

If we waited for every beggar in the world to have a horse, we would never be grateful for the ride. If we waited for every person in the world to be fed, we would never be grateful for our daily bread. If we waited for every person in the world to have a roof over their head, we would never be grateful for the one that covers us while we sleep. If we waited for a world where no one died, we would never be grateful for life.

So friends, rejoice and be glad, for this is the day the Lord has made. We should find happiness and joy in it. We should give thanks to God for it. Only then can our minds, hearts, and spirits be in the right shape to share what we have been given with those who are in need -- food, money, or, most importantly, the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Word Of God

I have run into enough people who are down with Jesus to some degree, but don't accept at all that the Bible can be the Word of God, to warrant a post on the subject.

The point of the post is to present the high level arguments for why the New Testament is authentic.

[Start Rant]

1. We have early testimony from at least 10 non-Christian (including anti-Christian) sources about Jesus that indicates the following: He live during the time of Tiberius Caesar, lived a virtuous life, worked miracles, had a brother named James, was said to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pontius Pilate on the eve of the Jewish Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when He died, His disciples believed He rose from the dead and were willing to die for their belief, Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome, and his disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

These all fly with the New Testament.

So, we have early testimony about Jesus that is backed up by secular sources.

2. We have many more, and earlier, copies of New Testament documents than any other ancient document that is not in question. Comparing the New Testament to The Illiad by Homer, we have over 5000 more manuscripts (5686 versus 643) and a much shorter time gap (25 years difference for the earlier New Testament manuscripts versus 500 years). Other pieces of classical literature don't even come close to what we have for Homer.

Reconstruction of the original text is further authenticated by many (thousands) of quotations from early church fathers -- the entire text, save 11 verses, could be recreated just from the quotations of it in other early documents.

So, we have accurate copies of New Testament documents.

3. New Testament documents referenced by other writers by about 100 AD, so they had to have been written before then. In them, the temple and city are still standing at the time of their writing, so most of them had to have been written earlier than 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Even atheist critics recognize that most of the New Testament books were penned somewhere between 40 AD and 80 AD at the latest.

So, we have early documents.

4. The New Testament writers record the same basic events with diverging details and some unique material, cite at least 30 real historical figures (confirmed by ancient non-Christian writers and discoveries), and include over 100 historically confirmed details.

So, we have real historical events at the heart of the New Testament.

5. The New Testament writers also included embarrassing details about themselves and Jesus, included difficult sayings of Jesus, included very demanding sayings of Jesus, carefully distinguished Jesus' words from their own, included events related to the resurrection that they wouldn't invent (i.e. putting a member of the Sanhedrin in favorable light, using women as the first witnesses to the resurrection, the conversion of the Jewish priests, etc), challenged readers to check out verifiable facts for themselves, and described miracles in the same simple way other events are described.

None of these make any sense if a group of guys was trying to fabricate a story, but the icing on the cake is this:

The New Testament writers abandoned their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopted new ones, and did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death. They had EVERY reason to DENY New Testament events, but they didn't.

NO ONE is willing to die for something they KNOW is a LIE!

So, we have good reason to believe the events in the New Testament were faithfully recorded.

6. What does the faithfully recorded New Testament say? It says that Jesus claimed to be God and it includes the following information to confirm it:

- His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself.
- His sinless life and miraculous deeds.
- His prediction and accomplishment of his resurrection.

Given all this information so far, we reach the conclusion that Jesus is God.

Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches must be true.

Jesus taught that scripture (what we now call the Old Testament) was the Word of God and promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles to author what we now call the New Testament.

[End Rant]

That's the general logical argument in a tiny nutshell. Don't take my word on any of these points -- look up the evidence. For each number here, there is definitely more than one large book written about the subject. Or, for a more condensed summary in one book, check out "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.