Matt’s Matters: The Reason for the Season

“But when the right time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. God sent Him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that He could adopt us as His very own children” (Gal. 4:4-5).

What Is Christmas All About? Christmas is more than tinsel, toys, trees, egg nog, gifts, and greetings. It is not merely a word of goodwill lightly spoken and soon forgotten in the harsh cries of conflict. Christmas is about answering the biggest dilemma that all people have! However, many people fail to realize the dilemma that they are in. This is just like the person who has cancer that is treatable if dealt with early on.

The dilemma is the crimes that we have committed against the God of the universe. In our hearts, we even recognize this reality. This is why we feel guilty when we lie to other people, take items that do not belong to us, say/do hurtful things to others, cheat on our spouses or taxes, etc.

One day all of us will have to stand before the God of the universe to give an account for our lives. On that day God will not judge us in comparison to what other people have done, but what we have done. And on that day, the good that a person has done will not compensate for the bad. In this we are all doomed as the Bible teaches (Rom. 6:23). Yet that brings us to the primary reason for the season.

One writer said, “Christmas is the celebration of the historical event of where God entered into our world so that He might display the perfection and holiness of God and that through His work of living perfectly and also dying on the cross for our sins, that all who trust in Him would be saved from the righteous judgment of God” (Matt Slick, What is the True Meaning of Christmas?).

John 3:16-17 says it like this. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” 

Jesus’ very name means, “The Lord saves.” He came to give His life for ours (Mark 10:45). He came to save sinners from the wages of their sins. There are numerous verses that teach this (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). Jesus did not come to save “good people.” He came to save sinners, which Biblically that includes all people as all are sinners (Rom. 3:23). Yet that is just it, we must recognize our dilemma before Him so that we will humbly repent of our sins to be saved.

While Jesus also came so that we could enjoy a relationship with God and to be an example of how to live a grace-filled abundant life. Thus, the primary reason for the season is related to an eternal matter. So, have you received the reason for the season, Jesus as your Lord and Savior? I pray that you have for that will change your life both now and forevermore.

In His service,

Matt

Theology 201 #11: Cultural Commands Part 3: An Act of Humility

“It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for Him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved His own who were in the world, He now showed them the full extent of His love” (John 13:1).

For the past couple of months we have been considering the significance of understanding cultural commandments. Cultural commands can be defined as: something that applies to the letter of the law in one culture, yet only the intent of the law applies in other cultures. Thus, because of cultural issues, a person could follow the letter of the law and yet break the intent of the law. That is sin regardless of one’s culture.

This month we consider Jesus’ command to wash one another’s feet. Jesus clearly teaches that we are to follow His example of washing one another’s feet just as He washed the disciples feet (John 13:14-17). Perhaps you have attended one of the very few churches who, as they celebrate the Lord’s Supper, wash each other’s feet. Or perhaps you have seen a foot washing take place in a church service to serve as an illustration (I have witnessed that a handful of times). Yet apart from an illustration, for most Christians, the practice of foot washing is nonexistent. But why is that the case? Are the majority of Christians blatantly disobeying a direct command of the Lord Jesus Himself? Or is this an example of a cultural commandment, and how would one know? 

Applying the eight question method that we have talked about for the past two months gives us great clarity concerning this command. First, it important to note that Jesus (who) was speaking these words to His disciples (whom too) some 2,000 years ago (when) in the land of Israel (where). During that time foot washing was a common act that took place virtually whenever a person entered another person’s house. People mostly traveled on foot in sandals across the dusty roads of Judea. When entering a home, it was customary to wash one’s feet (portions from Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John). To not offer to wash a guest’s feet was considered a breach of hospitality (see Luke 7:44). At a bare minimum, the host would provide water for their guests to wash their own feet (Gen. 18:4).

 Washing guests’ feet was a job for a household servant to carry out when guests arrived (1 Sam. 25:41). If a person had more than one servant, it was always performed by the one who had the lowest position/seniority. Another clue is to see how the idea of foot washing is conveyed elsewhere. When John the Baptist desired to give expression to his feeling of unworthiness in comparison to Christ, he could think of no better way to express this than to say that he deemed himself unworthy of kneeling down in front of Jesus in order to unloose His sandal-straps and remove the sandals (John 1:27). Thus, John the Baptist saw himself as even unworthy to be considered the lowest servant with regard to Jesus’ greatness.

It is interesting to note how the disciples responded to Jesus’ action of washing their feet. Peter, as a representative of the twelve disciples was blown away by it at first. Peter even explicitly said, “No...You shall never wash my feet” (John 13:8). Peter viewed himself as a servant of Jesus, not Jesus being his servant. It was not until Jesus told Peter that if He did not wash Peter’s feet that Peter would have no part with Him that Peter agreed to have his feet washed (John 13:8).

By comparing the timing of the event within four Gospels, another significant fact is revealed. Just moments prior to Jesus’ washing the disciples feet they were arguing over who was the greatest of the disciples (Luke 22:24). The Baker New Testament Commentary said, “In the Upper Room everything was ready. There was water in the pitcher. Yet no one stirred. Each disciple was hoping that someone else would make the first move.” Included in that group was Judas Iscariot who would soon betray Jesus. Jesus, the all-knowing God in the flesh understood that, even still He chose to wash all twelve of the disciples’ feet, including those of His betrayer.

In conclusion, after considering the original context, the implications of Jesus’ actions was a call to great humility and servitude on the part of His followers. And it was a call to even serve those who hurt and betray us in unimaginable ways. Is that what people think today about washing someone else’s feet? Does the idea of washing another person’s feet in our 21st century American culture fulfill the role of a lowly and humble servant seeking to put at ease another person, even if that person is our betrayer? Hardly!!!

Typically, the only people who have another wash their feet are those who are physically unable to do it themselves. And I think that it is safe to say that even in those instances it does not convey the same meaning that this command would have had upon the disciples and others living in Israel in the 1st century A.D. Thus, for most people in our culture, the idea of washing another’s feet, regardless of one’s position is completely foreign. The average person does not walk everywhere that they go down dirty, dusty roads wearing open-toed sandals.

It is for reasons such as these that most Bible believing Christians contend that foot washing is a cultural commandment. Additionally, there are other reasons to believe that it is cultural. “There is never a record of it being done by any church in Acts; (2) it is never advocated in the NT letters; and (3) it is never specifically said to be an ongoing ordinance as are baptism (cf. Matt. 28:19) and the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17–34)” (Robert James Utley, The Beloved Disciple’s Memoirs and Letters: The Gospel of John, I, II, and III John, vol. Volume 4, p. 120).

However, just because there is extremely good evidence that this is in fact a cultural command does not negate the spirit of the law. If you will recall from last month, the spirit of the law points to the intent of the law. The intent, as we have already seen, is a call to great humility and servitude on the part of Christ’s followers. Furthermore, the inspired word of God calls Jesus’ act a display of “the full extent of His love” (John 13:1). Thus, the full extent of Jesus’ love shown in His humble service to people who are not worthy to be His servants (which is true of every person who has ever lived). Jesus said that the reason that He came was “to serve and give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

Therefore, it is possible for someone to fulfill the letter of the law by washing other people’s feet yet fail to keep the intent of Jesus’ command. The application of this command is: are you a humble servant? Are you willing to selflessly serve others including those who have hurt you deeply? No doubt at this level it is much more challenging to fulfill Jesus’ intent than to literally wash another person’s feet. But that is the kind of service and humility that God calls us as Christians to fulfill.

The following are a few practical ways to fulfill the intent of Jesus’ command in our American culture: Taking on a menial task or accepting a lesser role. Not insisting on your “rights” or “privileges.” Meeting others’ needs before meeting your own. Looking for a job no one else will do and cheerfully doing it.

And ultimately focusing on the results being achieved, not who is getting credit (portions from Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John). Therefore, may we seek to follow Jesus’ example of love by being a humble servant.

In His service,

Matt

Elder’s Corner: In Search of the Ring

“Last Saturday started like any other Saturday except I had a lot on my plate to get done as our church was having a community picnic outside. I emptied trailers to carry the picnic tables, got the canopy to set up in case of rain, went to the store and got food to grill, and got the bounce house ready to unload. It started to rain just as I was setting up the canopy. Matt came by the park and said they had decided to set everything up indoors. So I went home and got the other trailer with the bounce house on it. We had a great time of fellowship, good food, and a good turnout. When I got everything put away that night, I came home and looked down at my hand only to discover that my wedding ring was gone. It was dark and rainy so I decided to wait until the next day to look for it. I took my metal detector to the place where I had set up the canopy. I also checked pockets, gloves, truck, coat, and everywhere else I had been as I retraced my steps. No luck finding the ring. It's been a week since I lost it. I went out again today with metal locator and searched again. No luck, again.  Even though the ring was worth a few hundred bucks, to me it was priceless because of what it signified. My wife had placed it on my finger to symbolize our trust and love for each other.

I now have a greater appreciation than I've ever had for the parable Jesus told in Luke 15:3-10.

In verse 4, He starts “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?” In verse 8, He repeats the lesson “Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!' In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Now I hope I find my ring, but this story Jesus told reminds me there are people who are lost which are much more important than earthly, material things (things which won't make it into eternity—but lives we can influence while we are here, that is what is important.)

—Alan

Theology 201 #10: Cultural Commands Part 2 The Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law

 “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16 NASB).

Last month we began a discussion of cultural commandments. Cultural commands can be defined as: something that applies to the letter of the law in one culture, yet only the intent of the law applies in other cultures. Thus, because of cultural issues, a person could follow the letter of the law and yet break the intent of the law. That is sin regardless of one’s culture.

So last month we discussed four guiding principles that will help us to understand cultural commands; and these principles will help us to understand all of Scripture. The four principles are as follows. First, we need to understand that all of Scripture is always authoritative (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Second, not all of Scripture is written to everyone. Third, the core meaning applies to everyone.

The core meaning is discovered by asking the following eight questions: WHO is saying what is written? WHOM to were the words spoken? WHEN were these things done or said (meaning which covenant/age)? WHAT is the context in which the passage is found (one chapter before and after)? It is likewise important to understand what the historical context of the event or words spoken: WHERE did it take place (physical location)? HOW are the key words used here and elsewhere?

Next we need to ask, WHY was the passage recorded? And HOW did the original audience respond? Lastly, the fourth guideline to understanding Scripture is to always keep in mind that Biblical commands are there to help us to love God and other people. Like I said, these four principles are essential to understanding all of Scripture, and especially cultural commands.

If a person does not understand the original meaning, they will naturally misapply numerous verses in the Bible! If we apply literally, aka, the letter of the law, to every verse of Scripture, by default we can violate the intent of the command, aka, the spirit (or intent) of the law.

At this point some will object to the idea of merely following the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law because they claim that it will lead to liberalism. However, in every instance in which the spirit of the law is more crucial than the letter of the law, the result is more conservative. For example, the letter of the law says, “Don’t murder” (Ex. 20:13). On the other hand, the spirit of the law states that if we even harbor hatred for someone else, we are guilty of murder (Matt. 5:21-22). Another example is the command against committing adultery (Ex. 20:14). Jesus taught that the spirit of law in this regard says that looking lustfully at a person is committing adultery in your heart (Matt. 5:28). Likewise, in the example of greeting one another with a holy kiss, the spirit of the law is much more conservative than the letter of the law.

Thus, let’s analyze this command. The letter of the law commands that we kiss each other on the cheek as a greeting. However, the spirit of the law says something radically different. In the Middle Eastern culture that the Bible was originally written to, a kiss was a sign of their perfect unity and mutual forgiveness. By calling it a “holy kiss” would symbolize Christ’s love mutually shared (portions from Gareth Reese, New Testament Epistles Romans, pgs. 745-746). No doubt in certain cultures today, literally greeting one another with a holy kiss, a kiss on the check, still conveys that same meaning. Therefore, if a person lived, or visited a place like that, as Christians, they should continue to practice that greeting. Yet keeping in mind its original intent.

On the other hand, in our Western culture, literally greeting others in that way would not convey the sign of their perfect unity and mutual forgiveness in Christ. Thus, how does one greet others in such a way to convey perfect unity and mutual forgiveness in Christ? It really is a matter of the heart.

When I greet other Christians, do I genuinely have Christian love for them? Are there any elements of jealousy that I might have regarding them? Do I desire unity in Christ among us? In this, am I willing to swallow my pride, and seek forgiveness of things that could be keeping us apart?

Thus outwardly, the command to greet one another with a holy kiss or in “Christian love” (Rom. 16:16 NLT), could be fulfilled with a handshake, hug, etc. Yet inwardly, there is a world of difference than simply giving a person a greeting. That is the spirit of the law. And as we seek to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of the law, God does a work of the Spirit in our hearts and lives and in the lives of those that we come in contact with.

In His service,

Matt

Theology 201 #10: Cultural Commands Part 1

 “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16 NASB). LOL! :)

The above verse appears in various forms five times in Scripture (1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14). Even still, the idea of greeting one another with a holy kiss is a rather awkward verse for the majority of Americans to apply in a literal sense (myself included, unless you are of course referring to my wife and kids). Therefore, most churches, commentators, and preachers just fly over it really fast or just ignore it altogether. I can even remember that being my experience in Bible College. Yet it is still Scriptural, so what do about a command that shows up five times in the Bible that is awkward for the majority of Americans?

This same case can be made with several different commands in Scripture. A concise list would include the practice of foot washing (John 13:3-5, 14-15), hand-railings around the perimeter of our rooms (Deut. 22:8), the commands against wearing jewelry, braided hair (1 Peter 3:3), the necessity to women having long hair and wearing head coverings (1 Cor. 11:3-16), etc. Again, how do we as Christians living in America apply these passages?

Over the next few months we will consider some of these individually. Yet the simple answer is that these are examples of cultural commands which could be defined as: something that applies to the letter of the law in one culture, yet only the intent of the law applies in other cultures. Thus, because of cultural issues, a person could follow the letter of the law and yet break the intent of the law. That is sin regardless of one’s culture. This definition will make more sense as we consider a few examples in depth. But before we do, we need to set some guidelines for all of Scripture and then see how it applies.

First, we need to understand that all of Scripture is always authoritative. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the New American Standard Bible reads, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”  So both Old and New Testaments, is authoritative over all people, in every age and culture. All passages are for our benefit.

No commandments can be freely disregarded; no examples are to be ignored. Scripture is much more than a guide for action; it is our “Manufacturer’s Handbook” telling us all how to live.

Second, not all of Scripture is written to everyone. So even though all Scripture is authoritative, it does not mean that it was written to everyone. This should be an obvious principle yet many overlook this fact. But it can be easily illustrated. When Jesus told Judas to go out and betray Him quickly, Jesus was not telling us to go out and do the same.

Or how about when God told Noah to build an ark? Was God telling all of us to do the same thing? Of course not. So, throughout the Bible there are tons of commands that do not directly apply to us. Yes, there can be a spirit of those commands that applies, but the letter does not. Take Noah for example again. We are not commanded to enter into a physical ark. Yet the ark is a picture of Christ for us (1 Peter 3:20-22). And we are commanded to be in Him. Total difference between the two.

Third, the core meaning applies to everyone. This is what the spirit of a law is referring to. Thus, what is the intent behind the command? It is easy to see how idioms, poems, allegories, sarcasm, etc. can be used to command a person to do something, yet they are not meant to be literally applied.

In order to discover the core meaning, we must first discover the original intended meaning. This involves asking eight questions: WHO is saying what is written? WHOM to were the words spoken? WHEN were these things done or said (meaning which covenant/age)? WHAT is the context in which the passage is found (one chapter before and after)? It is likewise important to understand what the historical context of the event or words spoken: WHERE did it take place (physical location)?  HOW are the key words used here and elsewhere? The true meaning of words are determined by their context and how they are used elsewhere. For example, if a person said the word “gay,” a dramatically different definition would be given based upon when it was used, how that person used it elsewhere, and how it was defined in that same time era. Next we need to ask, WHY was the passage recorded? And HOW did the original audience respond?

Many of these questions can be answered through simply studying the Bible, typically about a chapter before and after. However, some of these things will require going to a Biblical background handbook or dictionary. Some study Bibles will include that information, otherwise Bible Gateway.com offers a few free ones.

If a person does not take the time to answer these questions, there will undoubtedly be verses that will be incorrectly interpreted. So by asking these questions we are able to gain the context of the passage. Thus, these questions are very significant, for if you do not understand the context, then you are apt to misunderstand what is being said, or done.

A fourth guideline to understanding Scripture is to always keep in mind that Biblical commands are there to help us to love God and other people.

When we consider these four guidelines and especially the eight questions for learning the core meaning to the command of greeting one another with a holy kiss, we learn several things: First, it was common in the Middle Eastern culture that the Bible was written to. Of course this practice still remains in certain parts of the world today. Second, we learn that it was typically done within one’s gender, and had no homosexual implications behind it. Third, it was a token that all offenses were forgotten and forgiven, and that there was nothing but peace and goodwill between them. So the kiss was a sign of their perfect unity and mutual forgiveness. By calling it a “holy kiss” would symbolize Christ’s love mutually shared (portions from Gareth Reese, New Testament Epistles Romans, pgs. 745-746).

By properly understanding what a verse meant to the original audience we are then able to understand what it means to us today. In our culture, seeing two guys or girls kissing each other on the cheek, who are not biologically related does not convey that all offenses are forgiven and forgotten through their shared relationship with Jesus Christ! Yet that was the intent of those verses (this is sometimes referred to as the spirit of the law). It is for that reason that the New Living Translation translates Romans 16:16 as “Greet each other in Christian love…”

So my goal with these Theology 201 articles is to be able to help you to understand verses in the Bible that can be challenging for us to understand in our day and age. And, as a result, God’s Word will come alive to you and you will grow in your relationship with Him.

In His service,

Matt

Elder’s Corner: The Weeds & The Peppers

My garden has grown up with weeds these last few weeks as I haven't had time to give it the attention it needs. I took the mower and mowed the weeds where the cucumbers had been. As I was mowing I noticed the peppers had put on another big crop. I hate to say it but I picked a peck of peppers (not pickled, however). I also picked okra, and beans. One of my neighbors passed by and all he could see was the weeds from the road. He made the comment “Looks like you've given up on your garden.”

I thought how some people make the same mistake when they look at some people's lives. They look at them and all they see are the weeds (the bad choices, the addictions, the morality issues that surround them). These are the very people that Jesus looked at and saw past the weeds into the future and who they could become. (See John 4:7ff.)

We should be as wise in our discernment of how we view others. Yes, there may be some weeds hiding the true worth and productivity of that person. Maybe you could show them how valuable they could be.  Maybe at some point you've even had a few weeds in your life. Here's hoping you go check your neighborhood and find some real fruit (or did I mean vegetables). Your job is to cultivate people so the world will have less weeds and more flowers.

--Alan

Theology 201 #9: Did God Commit Atrocities?

“Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake His faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off; the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever” (Psalm 37:27-29)

One of the things that many people wrestle with as they study the pages of the Bible is God’s actions that at times seem very unjust. Some will even go so far as to blame God for committing atrocities in the Bible. Atheist Richard Dawkins in his book: The God Delusion said “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” At first glance it can be easy to understand how Dawkins comes to this conclusion. Just consider a few of the acts that the God of the Bible did do.

In Genesis 7:21-23, He drowned the entire world’s population: men, women, and children with the exception of 8 people. In Exodus 12:29, God killed every firstborn male child of the Egyptians. In the book of Joshua, God commands the destruction of every Canaanite living in the Promised Land. There are several other acts that God commits which seem very unjust and immoral. Thus, how should we respond to the seeming atrocities of God?

 There are three facts that must be understand. First, we must understand the fact that these actions are not evidence against God’s existence, rather proof of His existence. How is that the case? In order to recognize that something is inherently wrong, there has to be a consistent moral standard. To have a consistent moral standard is impossible without a moral law giver. One writer explains,  “Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver” (Got Questions.org, “What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?”; available from https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-argument.html). 

Additionally, to deny that there is a moral law giver is to deny that the God of the Bible did anything wrong. In fact, intellectually honest atheists admit that without God, objective moral laws cannot exist. This is true because it is the logical result of taking atheistic philosophy to its natural conclusion. If there's such a thing as evil, you must assume there's such a thing as good. If you assume there's such a thing as good, you assume there's such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there's such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God – the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there's not a moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil (portions from Compelling Truth, “How does the moral argument support the existence of God?” available from https://www.compellingtruth.org/moral-argument-existence-God.html).

An interesting side note, more people have been killed as a result of atheism in the past 100 years those who have waged war in the name of religion. Consider how many were murdered under the atheistic communism in just Russia and China, over 100 million! Therefore, as was stated, recognizing things that appear to be morally wrong in God’s actions actually prove His existence. However, this naturally brings us to a pointed question. Is the Moral Law giving God of the universe Himself immoral?

This brings us to the second fact that we must understand about God’s actions that are in question. Love and morality require justice. Law breakers must experience the consequences for their actions, otherwise there is no justice. A classic example of this comes from the book of Joshua. The Lord told Joshua and the Israelites to basically commit genocide of all who inhabited the land of Canaan. At the outset this seems very immoral. However, when we look at this event in the context of the entire Bible, we find the exact opposite.

The Lord had been very patient with the Canaanites. In the days of the Abraham (2000 B.C.) God said that Abraham’s descendants would not at once possess the land of Canaan, but would sojourn in a foreign country (Egypt) 400 years. Only then would they come back to Canaan, “for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen. 15:16).

600 years after the time of Abraham, the sin of the Amorites (Canaanites) had reached its full measure. God then said, “It is on account of the wickedness of these nations the Lord is going to drive them out before you (Deut. 9:4).

The Canaanites had become very cruel to one another. Judges 1:7 tells of the Canaanite king Adoni-Bezek, who had cut off the thumbs and big toes of 70 other “kings” he had captured, and then forced them to pick up scraps under his table for their food. In addition to this, clay tablets found in Egypt tell of continual hostilities among the cities of Canaan.

The Canaanite society was pervaded by an obsession with fornication. The legends of the Canaanite gods Baal and Anath are full of references to fornication. When the Israelites went to the worship of Baal at Peor, they soon became involved in immorality (Num. 25:1-3), because religious prostitution was part of the ritual.

The Canaanites practiced offering their children as sacrifices to their gods (Deut. 12:31; 18:9-10). For all of these reasons, justice needed to be served against the Canaanites, and so God used the Israelites to bring about that justice (portions from Wilbur Fields, Old Testament History: An Overview of Sacred History & Truth). 

Or how about the global flood that is talked about in Genesis chapter 6-9? Was God just in destroying the entire world with the exception of justice 8 people? Genesis 6:5 says, “The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” Verses 12 and 13 mention that violence filled the earth and corruption. A careful examination of Scripture reveals that God was patient with mankind for around 1,600 years before sending the flood. And meanwhile, there were people like Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah who all tried to get mankind to repent of their wickedness. Therefore, as one considers the context of the God of the Bible’s actions they realize that God was not immoral at all, instead He was patient, loving and just! So, it is very interesting that whenever people carry out justice it is humane, but when God does it some view it as atrocities.

The third fact that needs to be considered is that God sees the bigger picture. Some times God permits a person’s death for their own good. In the context of the Lord’s Supper, some who partake of it in an unworthy manner die prematurely (1 Cor. 11:30). However, in context the point of this  is to prevent them from experiencing the judgment of hell had they continued in their sinful ways.

This idea can be seen in the lives of children of immoral nations and people groups. The Bible teaches that when a person dies prior to understanding good from evil/right from wrong they are saved (http://eugenechristian church.blogspot.com/2016/07/man-image-of-god-7-do-all-babies-go-to_26.html?m=0). Thus, at times God permits the death of children to prevent them from following in their parents’ immoral footsteps that would lead them to hell.

Therefore, while God’s ways are not always our ways, His ways are always best for He knows the bigger picture that we cannot always see in our limited understanding. Really, this is about allowing God to be God. God’s plan is always for the good of mankind which must include justice being served. Some of that justice takes place in this life, some in the next.  Either way, God promises to right every wrong that ever takes place (Col. 3:25).

In His service,

Matt

Theology 201 #8: The Dangers of Arminianism Part #2

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).

This month we conclude our study of Calvinism and Arminianism. If you will recall: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. So over the past several months we have considered both sides. Overall, we at Eugene Christian Church feel that the Arminian side has more Scriptural support than the Calvinist side of this debate. However, there are issues with both sides.

Calvinists will argue that Arminians undermine God’s sovereignty. Yet as we have already discussed, in reality Arminianism actually looks to God’s greater sovereignty as He is able to orchestrate His plan for human history without undermining mankind’s freewill.

Calvinists will also argue that Arminianism leads to a works based salvation. To that I have two responses. First, allow Scripture in its totality to determine what a work is and what it is not. Thus, as has already been discussed, from Scripture Arminianism is not a works based salvation. Second, from personal experience, I have not seen mature Arminians who think and act as if their salvation is dependent upon their own good works. Thus, the core doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone is adhered to by the majority of practicing Arminians.

Apart from objections to Arminianism like the above or other objections that simply look at disagreements in the 5 key teachings of each (see http://eugenechristianchurch.blogspot.com/2018/05/theology-201-3-pick-brighter-tulip-part.html), most other objections can be easily eliminated. However, as an Arminian, I see two that are genuinely worth considering.

The first of which we looked at last month, open theism. No doubt open theism is a dangerous doctrine that arose when Arminianism was taken to an extreme. Open theism undermines God’s all-knowing nature. However, the Bible clearly affirms that God does know all things that have ever happened and will ever happen calling the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). Thus, open theism is in fact a dangerous heresy.

A second concern with Arminianism is the misunderstanding of the connection to Pelagianism. Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. Before going into much depth of what Pelagianism teachings, as an Arminian, I do not reject all that he taught.

Pelagius denied Calvinism’s teaching of original sin. Original sin is the teaching that all people have inherited a sin nature from Adam and Eve, and are thus, sinners by birth. Therefore, original sin essentially teaches that people will be held accountable for not only their own sins but also for the sins of their parents (Adam and Eve). However, we have talked extensively about how the Bible clearly teaches that a person cannot be held responsible for someone else’s sins! On our blog, you will find several articles affirming this (see http://eugenechristian church.blogspot.com/2016/07/man-image-of-god-7-do-all-babies-go-to.html?m=0).

  Likewise, Pelagius taught that people were inherently good, similar to Adam and Eve. Ecclesiastes 7:29 affirms that. There Solomon stated, “This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.” However, unfortunately, eventually every person makes the same decision that Adam and Eve made; they make the freewill choice to sin (Rom. 3:23).

All Arminians hold to some variation of this. The majority of Arminians teach what is sometimes referred to as semi-Pelagianism. “This view says that the only hereditary spiritual effect of Adam’s sin is a state of partial depravity. Every baby is born partially depraved, having a soul that is corrupted with spiritual sickness or weakness, i.e., with a ‘bent’ or inclination toward sinning. Still, it is not a total depravity; freewill is not lost. Also, as in the previous view, a child is born innocent, and thus free from guilt and condemnation” (Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All, p. 180). This can be witnessed in children at a very early age as they argue with others concerning whose toys they are playing with. “MINE!” Thus, one does not need to teach a child how to be selfish, they inherently act that way. However, as discussed, this does not undermine original grace, and points to how each child goes their own way very early on. “As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).

This brings us to an issue that Pelagius taught. Pelagius denied that our own sin corrupts our nature. The Bible makes very clear that when a person sins, sin/Satan becomes their master. In Ephesians 2:1-3, the Apostle Paul said, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”

This brings us to something else that Pelagius undermined, the grace of God. Pelagius taught that grace picked up where our efforts and goodness ended. In other words, Pelagius thought of grace as secondary or supplemental. There could be nothing further from the truth. Grace is necessary throughout all of life and it is not a supplement. It is the only thing that we have.

The Apostle Paul went on in Ephesians 2 to say, “But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:4-9). 

Grace is not just something that we need for salvation. Some in actual practice have taught that grace is necessary for a person to be saved initially, yet they are kept in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ by obedience. That is a works based salvation, and it is not possible. Just try to prevent yourself from sinning and see how that goes. Now please do not misunderstand me, the Bible clearly teaches that we should strive to live holy, God honoring lives (Heb. 12:14; 1 Peter 1:16). Yet in actual practice, it is impossible to keep oneself from sinning from time to time. Thus, there is a continual need for God’s grace.

One writer speaking of the dangers of Pelagius’s view of grace said, “All this implies, of course, that if you are extremely talented and self-disciplined and highly-motivated, you may not need grace at all. In other words, Pelagius’ concept of divine grace, at least potentially, makes the death and resurrection of Christ unnecessary” -(Sam Storms, 10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism).

Additionally, most times that the word grace appears in the Bible, it is not referring to saving grace. Most times it is referring to God’s kindness and love as displayed in His willingness to help us and answer our prayers. That is grace that we need daily as well.  

The bottom line is that we all need God’s grace. No one is going to get into heaven by simply being “a good person.” NO! Every person who makes it to heaven will be there on account of nothing other than God’s amazing grace!

Have you received His grace? And are you living in His grace each and every day? I pray that you are!

In His service,

Matt

Theology 201 #7: The Dangers of Arminianism Part #1 Open Theism

“Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Ps. 90:2 NASB).

Over the past several months we have compared and contrasted Calvinism and Arminianism. If you will recall: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. This month we will consider a potential danger related to the Arminian view known as open theism.

Open theism began being taught within the past 20 years or so, and thankfully has very few adherents. It is a liberal view that resulted from taking certain Arminian teachings beyond what is commonly taught. One writer explained open theism in the following way. “Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient (all-knowing), God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent (all-powerful), He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will” (https://www. iep.utm.edu/o-theism/).

There are a few things mentioned above that need careful consideration. First, let us consider possible proof texts that open theists use to support their position of God’s omniscience being limited. The open theists will argue, if God’s omniscience is not limited then how does one explain passages that stated that God repented? “And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart” (Gen. 6:6; see also the KJV of Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35; Jon. 3:10). 

Thus, the open theists argue, why would a perfectly all-knowing God need to repent, or even display emotions of surprise (Mark 6:6), or mourning over the death of a friend named Lazarus that God the Son, Jesus would raise from the dead (John 11:35)? Bruce Ware does a good job of explaining what it means when God is said to repent. “...it indicates His real experience, in historically unfolding relationships with people, of changed dispositions or emotions in relation to some changed human situation. Just because God knows in advance that some event will occur, this does not preclude God from experiencing appropriate emotions and expressing appropriate reactions when it actually happens” (God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, p. 91). This is very similar to how we express emotions. For example, when a loved one has a terminal illness, the doctors inform us that our loved one only has a very limited amount of time left. Thus, we know that they are going to be passing from this life soon, so their death is not a surprise to us. However, we still mourn over their passing when it comes. God is exactly like that. He knows all that will ever take place, yet He still displays emotions that are appropriate for each situation when it occurs.

In the case of when God is said to repent, it is important to note that it indicates that God is aware that the situation has changed. And therefore, He desires to act in a way fitting to this change.

At this point in this lesson, it would be good to consider things about God which never change, and things that do. God's character never changes. He is all-powerful. He is always present everywhere. He knows everything. He is Sovereign—thus, always in charge. He is always holy, righteous, just, loving, merciful and faithful. These are the things that are a part of God’s unchanging nature (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8).

Additionally, God’s eternal purpose and plan do not change, despite our contingent responses to them. “The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of His heart through all generations”- (Ps. 33:10-11). God’s eternal purpose includes sending His Son to die in our place, redeeming us from the curse of sin (1 Peter 1:17-21). The salvation of those who would be found in Christ is a part of God’s unchanging plan (Eph. 1:4-5). God’s unchanging plan included the purpose of His church as ambassadors to our fallen world (Eph. 3:11). Similarly, it was God’s unchanging plan that His followers would live holy lives (2 Tim. 1:9).

On the other hand, there are over 20 passages explicitly teaching that God does change His mind at times (Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:14; Jud. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:15; Psalm 106:45; Isa. 38:1-6; Jer. 18:7-10; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:4). This brings up the question: when does God change His mind? First, God changes His mind when people appeal to His mercy (Amos 7:1-3). And second, God changes His mind when people intercede for others in prayer (Amos 7:4-6). This reveals to us the power of prayer.

Open theists will agree that prayer can change the mind of God. However, open theists minimize God’s unlimited foreknowledge to what is knowable in the present. Thus, they limit God’s providential hand which is already at work in the situations that will occur in the future. On the other hand, the conservative Arminian will recognize that from eternity past, God has known every prayer which would ever be offered. And from eternity past, He has also known how He would respond to those prayers.

The early church leader, Augustine said, “Just as your memory does not force the past to have happened, God’s foreknowledge does not force the future to happen. And just as you remember some things that you have done but did not do everything that you remember, God foreknows everything that He causes but does not cause everything that He foreknows. “Let us rather confess that nothing in the future is hidden from God’s foreknowledge, and that no sin is left unpunished by His justice, for sin is committed by the will (free-will), not coerced by God’s foreknowledge.” 

Another issue open theists use to support their view of God’s limited knowledge relates to the problem of evil and suffering. Open theist Gregory Boyd stated, “Maybe God doesn’t know everything because of all the evil in the world. Why doesn’t God use His power to prevent 9/11 or other evils of the world? God knows everything that is knowable, but the future is not knowable therefore God doesn’t know the future perfectly therefore He is not always in a position to stop it.”

However, as we have already discussed, the Bible clearly affirms God’s perfect omniscience. Yet God does not need to eliminate evil, or even balance good and evil, right and wrong in this life, as long as He has promised to justly deal with evil in the next life (2 Thess. 1:5-10). Likewise, God’s perfect foreknowledge of all events which will ever take place does not change what we are going to do, violating our freewill. Rather, it just means that He can plan based upon what we are going to do. In fact, nothing in God’s divine foreknowledge contradicts the existence of human freewill.

Just as your memory does not force the past to have happened, God’s foreknowledge does not force the future to happen. And just as we remember some things that we have done, we do not remember everything that happens to us. On the other hand, God foreknows everything that He causes but does not cause everything that He foreknows.

William Lane Craig said, “How does the addition or deletion of the factor of God’s simply knowing some act in advance affect the freedom of the act? [The claim that it does] posits a constraint on human freedom which is entirely unintelligible. Therefore, it must be false. Somewhere there is a fallacy in the argument, and we need only examine it carefully to find the error” (Only Wise God, pgs. 68-69).

Therefore, as we have seen, open theism is a heresy that is a result of taking Arminianism beyond its intent. It undermines God’s sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience. However, thankfully, a careful examination reveals the beauty and majesty of the God of the Bible.

In His service,

Matt