Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

For some, the Twilight Zone is real.

For anyone with time on their hands and nothing to think about I present the following problem for you to consider: What does it mean when uncanny, too-bizarre-to-be-fictional strings of events continue to occur in a person’s life?  What if one series of events provides for a recurrent cheating of death and physical injury, while another series slaps you in the face time and again thus reducing you to a mere shell of a person, while still another series manages to put you in the most curious ephemeral circumstances at the right time?

What if there were no discernible patterns of human behavior involved which would allow one to theorize “Oh, this person did wrong, and that’s why these things happen” or, to the contrary, “Oh, this person is being rewarded, and that’s why these things happen”?  And to what degree should people plan their future activities with the expectation that such events will only continue to occur as they have been occurring?  For example, if the evil events that Job experienced in the first few chapters of the Book of Job continued for a longer period of time--say ten years--before ending, then in year five should Job have given up on the idea of having a family and riches ever again?

Response to Previous Post 'What Is the Gospel? by R.C. Sproul | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org'

Okay, I want to do something different here: instead of responding to DB’s last post in the comments section--which is limited in space--let me provide a full response here and make that a blog post.  Along the way I’ll go ahead and address you directly, DB, if needed. =)

In the article mentioned in the last post Dr. Sproul writes:

The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

What was written there is good news--good for Jesus, since he is the one who lived a life free of wrongdoings and moral error.  But how is that good news to me?  I am not Jesus, after all.  And if Jesus died for his people, good; but how is that relevant to anything or what does that mean?  Did Jesus die to set an example of how his people should live selflessly?  Did he die to save his people from their past sins though not necessarily for sins that will be committed later down the road in the future?  And who are his people anyhow?  And if Jesus died as a sacrifice for his people, what does that mean?  Is Dr. Sproul using the word “sacrifice” in a loose and vernacular sense as soliders may “sacrifice” themselves by throwing themselves on top of grenades or by running unprotected in front of bullets to save fellow members of their unit or platoon?  Or is Dr. Sproul speaking of sacrifice proper?

The desire to avoid a long, cumbersome and tedious message is understandable, to be sure.  However, if I were to hear Dr. Sproul’s words with the ears of a pagan who has no prior understanding of Christian theology, how would anything from the second paragraph of the article produce the faith according to which God justifies sinners?  In anticipation of possible responses, let’s allow Dr. Sproul to finish his message by now quoting the third and final paragraph of the article:

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

The meaning of the word “sacrifice” still is not clearly and unequivocally explained.  However, if explanations and analogies had been sought and mentioned in the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 and in specifics of the prophecy of Isaiah 53, these might have been quite helpful.  These passages in turn would have been made more understandable by Acts 2.22-23 and 4.27-28 where even the apostles take time to clarify how the Romans’ killing of Christ could amount to an act of punishment executed by God himself.

Until these and other things are explained in people’s approaches to evangelism, there is not much to prevent more new instances of false conversions and false faith.  Remember that while the verb “believe in” does mean believe in and the noun “faith” does mean faith, it is clear that biblical writers still had something specific in mind when they spoke of the faith according to which God justifies sinners.  For example, if Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter by trade and was hired to have someone fashion a new table for them, the trust or faith of the person who trusts the Lord to now provide him with a new table does not have the sort of faith that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2.8-9, clearly.  In fact, coaches, soccer moms, or other people who would today say “I believe in you” as part of a speech to pep up their athletes before a game are expressing what are merely beliefs that those athletes have great ability or potential, as opposed to expressing any trust, dependence or reliance upon those individuals.  So if one takes an unclear message, mixes it with modern semantic ambiguity, and mixes it also with faith’s capacity to have different sorts and objects or targets, he is poised to produce more cases of the false brethren that have been mentioned quite often in past articles of this blog.

(Again, apparently it is by vagueness of teaching and preaching that one unbeliever goes on to believe merely that Jesus is great and powerful.  Meanwhile, another unbeliever goes on to trust his response to the Gospel or a gospel as means of salvation from fear of divine wrath.  In the meantime, still another unbeliever goes on trust Christ for the wrong things, and so on.)

If one goes back to read the New Testament to see how matters were handled in the earliest days of the church, I think that he or she will find that it’s okay to spend some time, effort, and repetition in doing the work of what is rightly called evangelism.  In Acts chapter two apostle Peter finds time to quote the prophet Joel, to speak of the wonders and signs performed through Christ, to mention the role of predetermined or predestined actions in the life of Christ, and so on.  In Acts 13.13-52 the apostle Paul likewise does not attempt to truncate or supersimplify the good news of Christ into a short sound byte or blurb; in fact, his audience even invites him to return to speak to them again despite his would-be verbosity.

So perhaps in the future it would be good to remind people--specifically Christians--of various things and to later teach the same thing to unbelievers.  For example, in Mark 2.10 we are told that while the Son of Man walked this earth he had authority to forgive sins.  We are also told in Matthew 28.18-20 that all authority in heaven and earth was given to him.  If God as the authority to forgive sins, and if all authority has been given to Christ, does Christ not have the authority to forgive people’s sins?  And if Christ has this authority, is this not a good reason for sinners to trust Jesus Christ if they call upon his name?

---

Any comments on the matter, sir?

Jeremiah 29:11 as a Life Verse?

This is a good look at using Jer. 29:11 as a life verse for us. I am not advocating that we cannot learn something from all Scripture, but we certainly must be careful to read ourselves into passages, especially in light of real life. Otherwise, our life may look like God does not keep His "promises". The martyrs' lives may look like God does not keep His promises. When God promises something, He will most certainly keep His Word.

DB

JEREMIAH 29:11 AS A LIFE VERSE?
by Lisa Robinson July 18th, 2012
(Lisa Robinson)

As a follow to this post on life verses, I’ve been reminded that Jeremiah 29:11 is a fairly common one claimed as a personal, individual promise. But is Jeremiah 29:11 a promise for us today or was it related to a particular situation at a particular time? Was it an individual promise or a corporate promise?  Voddie Baucham has some interesting things to say in this 6 minute clip. (Although I wish he would have left out the God killing part given controversy over recent statements).



Examining vs 11 in context of the entirety of what Jeremiah tells a different story than how the verse has been claimed. It’s why I wrote here that we have to careful when turning narrative or prophetic discourse into a personal prescription for today. As Baucham points out, it can have very harmful consequences.
What do you think? I would be interested to hear a defense for using it today.

The Best Sermon I've Heard in Years

Actually, it’s not a sermon at all! Still, in my mind it played like a sermon. On the problem of evil:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/#Suf

When Secular and Christian Philosophy Cross Paths (Providence)

“Things happen for a reason.” This is what some non-Christians will say, whether they speak of “unfortunate” events or events which seem to occur without a motivation or intention as a cause.

Of course, there is something to be said about the idea that all things happen for a reason. To be sure, a reason behind many actions and events is human foolishness or frailty. However, that all things happen because of a divine motivation or intention as a proximate cause* seems less clear. One thing that is clear is that God causes all events--and no, the verbs “cause” and non-auxiliary “do” are not semantically interchangeable--whether He brings about these things directly in some instances or by a diversity of means in other instances. For example:

36 To subvert a man in his cause, the LORD approveth not. 37 Who [is] he [that] saith, and it cometh to pass, [when] the Lord commandeth [it] not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3.36-38)

The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16.4)

Man’s goings [are] of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way? (Proverbs 20.24)

For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11.36)

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Ephesians 1.11)

However, there seems to be ample reason to believe that not all of God’s causing all events is done in a recurrent, everyday, and case-by-case manner of his commanding, “Let the sun rise tomorrow morning” or “You electrons over here, continue to orbit this atomic nucleus” or something like this. Based on two different kinds of texts it seems safe to say that some events are brought about by natural law or natural laws which were given long ago and continue to act consistently in virtue of inherent properties of these laws.** First there are what appear to be “fire-and-forget” ordinances, decrees or laws:

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? (Job 38.33)

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: (Proverbs 8.29)

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand [for] the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? (Jeremiah 5.22)

24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant [be] not with day and night, [and if] I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, [so] that I will not take [any] of his seed [to be] rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. (Jeremiah 33.24-26)

(Compare Job 38.8-13, Psalm 33.6-9, Psalm 148.2-6, Isaiah 45.12, 2 Peter 3.5, et al.)

With that said, it is possible to issue a ordinance, decree or law for precisely one particular reason while also willingly allowing such a thing to act otherwise indeterminately. If I were to command someone saying, “Go and buy a new car” there is no one particular object out there in the world which the name “car” denotes in this instance or which I have in mind; the name “car” here is non-referential and only connotative. Yet the command ultimately can still have the effect of causing someone to buy a particular and real automobile, as with a rich oil sheikh’s commanding a servant to buy him a new BMW, or something on that general order. The real and actual car which is eventually bought is not something which was particularly requested by this sheikh, yet there are inherent properties of the issuing of the command which go on to produce the effect of the purchase of a particular object.

Now imagine that there are inherent properties of both natural law and physical objects, ones which God uses as He will yet also are allowed to act indeterminately. Given that the apostles Paul and Peter use the word “flesh” to speak of evil inclinations of human nature, though everything which was created at the beginning the world was good, one can then go on to imagine that fallen human nature exists as such on account of inherent properties of natural law and/or physical objects--mix two chemicals together and you get one result from the combination; mix two other chemicals together and the combination produces still another result; etc. One is inclined to believe that these are concepts which make the best sense of Scriptures where someone is said to be “given over” or “given up” to evil as opposed to being “sent” or “caused to go,” as in the following:

41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. 42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices [by the space of] forty years in the wilderness? (Acts 7.41-42)

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1.21-32)

What this means, unless someone can explain otherwise, is that not every Scripture which speaks of God’s causing all events--both human events and events not involving human beings--is necessarily one which demonstrates that every event happens for a proximate reason. The spirit of the sentence “Things happen for a reason” seems to be one of proximate causes, and if this is so then it is questionable. On the other hand, if the purview of that sentence is unrestricted, then it is perfectly clear that everything does indeed happen for a reason. The clarity exists in virtue of the testimony of the Scriptures as opposed to what either believers or unbelievers will suppose to be intuition.

---------------
* Proximate, as in not several hundred steps-removed in a causal nexus or a chain of causality from efficient cause, to medial causes to occasion--but rather a cause with only one step or a few steps between it and its effect.

** Of course, even if all instances of God’s working all things, to use the language of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 1, were theoretically reduced to nothing more than age-old natural laws of God that He issued once and never had to issue again, it would still be fair to say that God works (present tense) all things. This can be seen by analogy of a murderer who poisons and then leaves the state of California on Monday, and lounges in Nevada on Tuesday at which time the victim also dies back in California; only those who are dead have been murdered, and so the murderer becomes such a person not before Tuesday and in virtue of a remote past action.

Powerless Powerful People

2 Timothy 2:13: “If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”

If it is fair for the apostle Paul to blur identities here, as if the Head of the body of Christ were identical with the parts of the body, then up to a point perhaps it is fair for us to do the same. That is, if Christ cannot deny himself, then his self probably cannot deny him. Consequently, particular apostasy--in this case, a repudiation of Christianity--probably is not possible for those in whom the seed of God and the Spirit of God dwells.

Meanwhile, even if one can produce biblical exhortations or warnings that one not succumb to even this sort of apostasy, this doesn't necessarily prove that such apostasy is possible of believers. I go back to what Dr. John Martin Fischer was telling us once in class. Someone once explained to him (and I paraphrase): Look, even if determinism is true and your visiting a particular restaurant later tonight is determined, it’s still not going to happen unless you (intentionally) get up and go there.

God keeps his people safe, but God is also a God of means. And this means that you should not be surprised if God were to accomplish his ends through reminders of what would happen if two links in the causal chain were to be removed.

Second Juxtaposition

The following set harkens back to http://bright-idea.blogspot.com/2009/09/juxtaposition.html, but it also presents its own challenge:

Revelation 2.20: “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.”

1 John 3.9: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

The challenge for biblical inerrantists is to come up with a truly plausible explanation of the seeming contradiction. The challenge for errantists includes this and their civil obligation to give the benefit of the doubt and not to jump the gun. Any thoughts?

Juxtaposition

Regeneration does not guarantee instant moral infallibility. Nevertheless, it apparently does come with limits:

1 John 3.15: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”

Revelation 2.20: “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.”

More could be said on this subject.