This Sunday afternoon I have spent a few hours reading over the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I have found it to be thoroughly edifying and worthy of bloging about (and worthy of your read.) The Westminster longer and shorter catechisms are also excellent.
A little note about creeds and Confession's of Faith might be in order at this point. While Holy Scripture is our sole source of inspired revelation and infallible authority, it is not our only authority. Scripture must be interpreted within the hermeneutical boundaries of the apostolic rule of faith, and it must be interpreted in and by the church. Other authorities exist which are subordinate to Scripture.
This statement of faith is a good rule of faith by which to judge what you believe. It is a statement of the Christian faith, the faith which I believe the apostles taught, later wrote about, and which was canonized in the Bible. the 1689 LBC is not infallible, but it is authoritative.
Now, on to the content: Just a few things I wanted to highlight...I'll write more later hopefully. (You likely won't find these in the highly condensed modern Baptist statements of faith.)
Chapter I, article 7._____"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)"
Chapter 3, article 1._____ "God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )"
Chapter 3, article " 2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )"
There are 32 Chapters in all. Maybe read one a day and call it "32 Days of Faith." Imagine the possibilities! Sell millions of books, fly banners, host seminars...or perhaps just read it as you have time. :)
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Religion: the big bad word
Religion seems to have gotten a bad name as of late. I have listened to a lot of K-love over the last week, and heard a commercial for a website www.NotReligion.com. The catch phrase of the day, as quoted on the NotReligion.com website, is "It's not about Religion--It's about Relationship." I pose this question to any and all: What is so wrong with religion?
religion
P Pronunciation Key (r
-l
n)
n.
- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.I have provided a definition of Religion from dictionary.com above, and I tell you, doesn't sound so bad to me. I have a "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power [...] regarded as Creator and Governor of the universe." In addition to that I hold"a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," namely Jesus Christ our Lord. Belief and action. Any of those parts of the definition seem to fit.
James the brother of Jesus wrote "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:26-27.)
But if someone holds the catch phrase of the day "relationship, not religion" how can they understand what James has written? We cripple their understanding. As James points out there is good religion and bad religion. Religion and relationship is not either/or but both/and. They are not mutually exclusive.
James goes on to write in chapter 2:14-18 "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."You cannot have a real relationship with Jesus that is not accompanied by works. But that is what Religion vs. Relationship seems to pair against each other, and what James addresses.
I understand that the word "religion" has recieved a bad connotation, and brings to mind irrational actions by fanatics, or any other myriad of other notions. But what are we to do when something recieves a bad connotation. Scrap it? The word "Baptist" has a bad connotation to some, and so many churches now sport "Community Church" on their signs, jettisoning baptist altogether. What if the word "Christian" recieves a bad connotation. Will we stop calling ourselves Christians? (In fact for many it does have a bad connotation...started out as an insult!)
No. We correct the connotation. Teach. Anything else just confuses the issues.
Thursday, May 4, 2006
The message of Romans 9
As the final for my New Testament class, my professor assigned us the task of writing a sermon. The sermon could be over a few different choices of texts, and from that list I chose Romans 9. It is not a systematic theology, nor does it answer every question you may think of, but I believe with my heart this is the message Paul is conveying. Huge I know, but if you would like to read feel free to do so. Let me know what you think.
In Christ,
-Tommy
INTRODUCTION: ROMANS 9
Paul writes in Romans 9:6-13:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from
Such words as Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated can make us cringe the first time we hear them. The underlying issues and theological debates about them have split churches, families, seminaries, and during the Reformation lead to the deaths of many believers. I say this not to cause any to hide from the issues, but to admonish us all to stick closely to our infallible words, the Bible. With that in mind, what is it that Paul is conveying here?
For some background on this passage, Paul wrote in chapter 8:28-30: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.[2] Paul taught that in eternity past God predestined those he foreknew to be called, justified, and glorified--in other words, every step in salvation. What is the basis of this predestining?
BACKGROUND: FOREKNOWLEDGE
Paul writes in Romans 8:28-30 that those he foreknew he also predestined. He does not write what the basis of the foreknowledge is. Some have speculated that it could be a foreknowledge of what man would do. Paul goes on in chapter 9 of Romans to give examples of predestination, which Paul has already said is based on foreknowledge. Those examples can gauge our understanding of what foreknowledge here means.
In Romans chapter 9, Paul raises and answers the question of why many of the Jews rejected Christ and salvation. To illustrate, Paul draws out the example of Gods choice of Jacob over Esau. God elected Jacob over Esau in foreknowledge. Yet in this example of God choosing Jacob over Esau, understanding foreknowledge to mean a knowledge of what Jacob or Esau would do does not fit. Gods choice was made before they were born, before that had done anything good or bad. God chose this way so that [His] purposes in election might continue, not because of works but because of his call.
So what kind of foreknowledge is this? This passage underscores that God knew persons, not merely some fact about them, for example the fact that some persons would believe. The foreknowledge Paul writes of here is a personal, relational knowledge. This personal knowledge is a necessity for any sort of predestining. For example, it would be irrational for God to predestine Jacob to anything if God had no knowledge that he would create a Jacob. The basis of Jacobs election to receive grace over Esau is not based upon any human activity foreseen or performed. Paul here writes nothing of God basing His choice of certain persons or groups for election upon any foreseen choices or foreseen faith, nor does any other passage of scripture.[3] Before we go further I want to affirm that all who have faith will be saved, and all saved will have faith. But as our text shows, this is not the basis for election unto salvation.
THE PROBLEM PAUL ADDRESSES
The conclusion Paul draws after Romans 8:28-30 is that nothing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul then raises an issue his readers would certainly have raised. The issue raised in Romans 9:1-5 regards the nation of
Paul illustrates this truth through the election of Jacob, but not of Esau. A question: Is Paul referencing the election of individuals, or groups, here? A first observation to make to answer the question is to realize that all groups are comprised of separate individuals, so in some sense the distinction is really a moot point. Further though, the text explicitly says the older shall serve the younger, referring to the individuals, not nations. If we must press further still, consider that Paul writes of Jacob, an individual, and Esau, an individual, to explain why Jewish individuals in Pauls own day rejected Christ. The initial question Paul raises is of why the group descended from Jacob is not homogenous in their faith, and Pauls answer to the dilemma is that even from the beginning, God elected individuals for faith, not whole family or tribal lines.
The example of Jacob is not an isolated example of Gods election in the past that we can dismiss as being irrelevant to election in Christ. The election of Jacob is an example of Gods election of persons for salvation through Christ Jesus that has direct implication for our own salvation.
BASIS OF ELECTION
Since Gods choice in eternity past is not based on foreseen faith or other human activity, what is it based on? Paul teaches in Romans 8:28 that we are called according to his purpose.[5] In Ephesians
One thing Paul did not write is that man is predestined according to mans free and sovereign will. We would often like to think that. In pride,
If we choose not to believe that God sovereignty elects those who will be saved, but that mans will is the decisive factor, we must ask What makes the difference?[9]
This is a question I have asked myself, and I pray that you will ask yourself honestly. Why did I make the choice for Christ and not the person next to me? Am I smarter? Am I wiser? Perhaps I have a will more disposed to believe than a lost persons? Perhaps I just make better choices, ultimately the right choice. The righteous choice...meaning I believe myself to be more righteous? An answer of yes to any of those questions would certainly leave me room for boasting. And plop me right into the middle of a heresy, believing that what separates me from the lost is grace plus some merit or ability within myself that others lack. That is salvation by works, not by Grace.[10] I say this in all love, but we must humble ourselves and repent of such prideful thinking.
What truly makes people differ is what God does, and so salvation is by grace alone at its most foundational level.
So why was Esau not elect? Charles Spurgeon writes of a mans encounter with a friend in An All-Round Ministry that may give us some insight:
One said the other day, "I hate that text which says, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated.'" "Why?" said a friend; "what is the difficulty to your mind?" The reply was, "I cannot see why God should hate Esau." "Nay," said our friend, "I am not at all surprised that God hated Esau, but I am greatly amazed that God loved Jacob."[11]
In Romans
OBJECTIONS
Paul anticipates an objection to this teaching though. Romans 9:14-15: What shall we say then? Is there injustice on Gods part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.[13]
God has every right to have mercy on whichever sinners He decides to have mercy, and have compassion on whomever He sovereignly decides to have compassion. Those who God has decided to have mercy upon we call the elect.
God also has every right to not show mercy to sinners. God instead gives them the justice we all deserve. Theologians call this reprobation. The reprobates have been passed over for salvation. In not choosing them for life, God has determined not to change them. The reprobates will continue in the sins they love, and finally be judged for what they have done.
In neither case is their injustice on Gods part. The choice of God to show mercy to some depends completely upon God, as Paul writes further: Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.[14]
God sometimes goes a step further with the reprobate and removes the restraining influences that keep them from acts of extreme disobedience. Paul goes on, writing in Romans 9:17-18 a quote from Exodus 9:16 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.[15]
This hardening where God abandons a reprobate sinner, is itself a penalty for sin. This is the case with Pharaoh. God allowed Pharaoh to do what Pharaoh really wanted.
Not only does God receive Glory for showing mercy, but as Paul tells us in this passage, but God also receives glory in removing his restraining influences. God removed his restraining influences from Pharaohhardened himthat God might show his power in defeating him and Gods name might be declared everywhere.
What I have just said probably makes many of you uneasy. In spite of what I have said regarding Pauls teaching, it may even still sound horrible or unjust to you. It assaults our pride, vanity, self-sufficiency, and sense of justice. Terms such as double-predestination and supralapsarianism may come to mind. I pray as Paul prayed in Ephesians 1 that our Lord may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe...[16] I pray that apart from any loaded terminology or previously held bias, you will believe our text and what Paul has written.
This teaching raises all further objections. One objection might go something along these lines: If men are born with a sin nature bent on rebellion against God, and man can never desire to obey God from birth, how can God still find fault with a man? By what right can God blame a man for his sins when God has hardened that man against Himself?
Yet again, Paul anticipates this objection. Romans
Paul is not raising a theoretical objection with no basis in reality. This objection of Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resisted His will? can only logically follow from one interpretation of the preceding passages: that God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, he hardens. God elects some unto salvation and hardens others against Him.
If this were not what Paul taught, the question could be easily dismissed with an answer such as Mans will is sovereign. God is therefore perfectly just.
Instead, Pauls answer is somewhat shocking: Romans 9:20-21 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonored use?[18] Instead of directly answering the objection, or dismissing it as irrelevant, Paul asserts Gods right and authority to create us as He sees fit, according to His purposes.
At this point you may well reject everything I have said because you believe it to be a contradiction. Knowing that God is righteous, you may see a contradiction between God holding man responsible for his sins and not coming to him for forgiveness, when man in unable to naturally exercise his free will to repent and accept the offer of forgiveness made to him.
Yet the Bible makes this very assertion. Matthew
No contradiction exists though. An example of a contradictory statement would be to say I have a square circle. It is a contradiction in terms, and is inconsistent. There are no contradictions in the Bible. The Bible is consistent. What we do have in the Bible, though, are paradoxes and mysteries.
The example of Jesus statements is a paradox. Paradoxes appear to be contradictions, but given enough information and sound reason, paradoxes can be seen to be consistent. The information we are missing from Jesus statements is that No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, John
The Bible also contains mysteries. How God works all things together for good for those who are called according to His purposes is a mystery. We can never know enough to completely understand how that can happen, though God may choose to reveals small segments of this to us.
The tension between Gods sovereignty and mans responsibility is a mystery. God has revealed certain aspects of how it works and Gods purposes behind this, but we can never know everything. Why God chooses to elect some and not others is according to the counsel of Gods will. The counsel of Gods will is well beyond our understanding, and so that is a mystery too. We can only speak with certainty about what God has revealed clearly. Much of the time we may not understand. But please understand this: we must apprehend the truth even if we cant comprehend the truth. In the absence of understanding we are still responsible to believe what God reveals.
An example of this is the Trinity. We latch on to the truth that God is one in essence but three in person. Yet a full understanding is beyond our finite minds. Other religions accuse Christianity of being polytheistic based on a misunderstanding of this doctrine. They demand to understand, and reject anything they cant fit into a neat box.
Lets bring this full circle back around to the objection Paul addresses: Why does he still find fault, for who has resisted his will? Our fallen, finite minds may not be able to grasp how Gods justice works. It is a mystery. Paul addresses it as a mystery, simply asserting Gods right to make us as He deems best, and Gods authority to judge us. Though I will explore this issue in a moment, Pauls assertion of Gods authority should settle the debate for us.
Jesus himself openly taught both man's responsibility and his moral inability in the most famous gospel presentation in the Scriptures, John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.[22] This verse explains what God did and what He requires of man to be saved. Fairly straight forward. But Jesus isn't finished yet. Just two verses later where, in the same breath as John 3:16, Jesus says:
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things [thats all of us at some point!] hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.[23]
Apart from God renewing a mans heart, man is morally unable to respond positively to the Gospel because man does not want to. Mans will loves darkness and evil rather than the goodness and the truth. Moral inability differs from physical inability in that a man would not be condemned if his inability to come to God was merely due to a physical handicap. Moral inability is like a man who owes a great debt that cannot be repaid. Although he is responsible to honor his debt he does not have the wherewithal to do so. That is our position before God prior to the Holy Spirit applying the new birth. Man owes a debt he cannot repay, but he is still responsible for it. In other words, we are required to have faith in Christ but our love for darkness and hatred for God keep us from doing so.[24]
APPLICATION
As I have said, Paul writes of mans accountability as well. Man is accountable for his every word, thought, and deed, for his belief or disbelief. Paul writes in Romans 10:9-10 [that] if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Only if a man has faith will he be saved. The Bible does not present a fatalistic system where human choices and human decisions do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore it is futile to attempt to influence the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort.[25]
Quite to the contrary, Paul writes But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent. [] So faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 9:14-15a, 17.[26]
Human involvement is expected and required. God has not only ordained the ends, he has also ordained the means. We have no way of knowing who is elect and who is reprobate when we are evangelizing, so we are called to evangelize to everyone. If you cant understand why that is needed, the command of Jesus should be enough.
We who hold this view of Gods sovereign election have one weight taken off our shoulders that many other Christians do not: If we are faithful to present the word of God, the gospel, to the lost, God takes care of the results. His word will not return void. It is not as though the word of God has taken no effect. This truth can free us from temptation to use gimmicks and emotional lures in evangelizing, instead trusting in the power of Gods word to have every effect He intends it to have. The eternal destiny of someone is not dependant upon how attractive or persuasive we are, how good an showman I am, and that should cause us to sleep easy.
How should we respond to Pauls teaching on election? Accusations of unfairness? No, As Paul wrote in Romans 9:31b: If God be for us, who can be against us?[27] We need to humbly thank God for saving us, the elect who deserve no such election. Praise God for his mercy, power, majesty, and sovereignty!
Even more, as Paul writes in Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.[28]
[1] Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] ESV.
1
[3] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology.
[4] ESV.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., Romans 10:3.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Grudem, 674-79.
[10] Ibid., 674-79.
[11] C.H. Spurgeon. An All-Round Ministry.
[12] ESV.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid., John 3:19-21.
[24] http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/John316-321.html
[25] Grudem, 674-79.
[26] ESV.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
If anything exists, God exists.
Why is there anything? Why not nothing?
This is one of the great questions man has asked himself over the millenia. What is the nature of reality? Why is it here? Four possibilities exist:
1.) Nothing exists. It is all an illusion.
2.) The universe is self created.
3.) The universe is self existent and eternal.
4.) The universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being.
This is a simplification of course, where many would make minor variations to each of these options. But when boiled down to their core, all options will fit into one of these four catagories. A quick observation about this list is that two of our four options require something to be eternal and self-existent. We shall deal with those last.
The first option came from the philosopher David Hume's radical skepticism. He repudiated the possibility of certain knowledge, finding in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world derives solely from the conjunction of two impressions. We only think effects are caused by cause he pondered. Hume's skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology. His chief work was "A Treatise of Human Nature" (1739-40) Hume's work had the potential to destroy the credibility of all scientific investigation, which requires the acceptance of the Law of Cause and Effect and the general reliability of sense perception.
Along came Immanuel Kant who coined the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. Even if we doubt all else, if I think, I know at least I exist. It is true by definition, and is proof something exists. Someone may object "I think I don't exist," but such a statement still says "I think." It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, and is akin to saying soemthing like "this piece of chalk is not a piece of chalk," total rubbish. Myself denying that I exists still affirms that I exist.
So, we know for a fact that something exists, hence option one is irrational and impossible.
In my last blog I gave proof for why the universe cannot be self-created. Such a belief is irrational. For something to create itself it must exist before it exists. Hence option two is irrational and impossible.
At this point our two last options require the existence of something that is eternal, and self-existent (not created). This violates no principle of rationality or logic.
The third option, that the universe is self-existent and eternal, begs several questions. What part is eternal and self existent? I certainly am not. I had a definite start on March 1st, 1981, and require other things to continue my existence. The desk I am sitting at is not self existent or eternal. Nor is the sun, or anything in our solar system. Everything is winding itself down as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says (simplified) that everything tends toward disorder. To go toward order require energy input and intentionality/design. If everything is headed "down hill" toward disorder then that means...it was once ordered. That is what the Big Bang theory says, that all of existence was once compressed into an ordered dot a trillionth the size of a proton. To say a perfectly ordered, eternal dot spontaneously became unordered without any outside intereference violates the Law of Cause and Effect. So what caused it to become unordered, to explode?
Answers to this question fall into one of two catagories. Either the "scientist" will pull a quantum mechanics magic trick and resort to self creation (possibility two), which is impossible and irrational, or say something like "Speculations about what caused the Big Bang are not part of the testable, and falsifiable aspects of this theory." In other words...don't ask that, it isn't part of science. But oh, yes it is. Science is intimately concerned with cause and effect, and to write off the question about the First Cause as something we can't know or shouldn't be concerned with is a dishonest sham. I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
So if I am not eternal and self-existent, nor is anything close to me eternal and self-existent, then somewhere out there in the universe something else is. Far, far away there is some self-existent eternal orb. Starting to sound a lot like option four...
Having shown that option three is, at best nothing more than option four in disguise, or at worst irrational, we know that the universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being, which is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 and onward. An eternal, self-existing being is a logical necessity. The greek philosopher Aristotle called this self-existent, eternal being the Unmoved-Mover.
So what was the point of all of this? Someone might object that all we have done is to become theists, arriving logically at the door of the Lyceum. In the second century Tertullian famously propounded the rhetorical question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" The Unmoved-Mover of Aristotle was an impersonal being that created out of necessity, without choice, a far cry from the God of Israel. But simply because the proof's I have shown are not a complete revelation of God does not mean that what I've shown isn't true. In fact, we cannot have a complete knowledge of God. It is precisely at this doctrine of Christianity, that there exists an eternal creative being, that the guns of atheists and agnostics are pointed at. Hence, the proofs I have shown are worthwhile. But they do not end there.
Our universe displays purpose, design, and intentionality. That means the eternal, self-existent Being is intentional and purposeful. If intentional and purposeful, then intelligent and with a capacity to chose (to will). If intellect and a will, then personality. This is exactly what the Bible teaches.
So if anything exists, God exists.
This is one of the great questions man has asked himself over the millenia. What is the nature of reality? Why is it here? Four possibilities exist:
1.) Nothing exists. It is all an illusion.
2.) The universe is self created.
3.) The universe is self existent and eternal.
4.) The universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being.
This is a simplification of course, where many would make minor variations to each of these options. But when boiled down to their core, all options will fit into one of these four catagories. A quick observation about this list is that two of our four options require something to be eternal and self-existent. We shall deal with those last.
The first option came from the philosopher David Hume's radical skepticism. He repudiated the possibility of certain knowledge, finding in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world derives solely from the conjunction of two impressions. We only think effects are caused by cause he pondered. Hume's skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology. His chief work was "A Treatise of Human Nature" (1739-40) Hume's work had the potential to destroy the credibility of all scientific investigation, which requires the acceptance of the Law of Cause and Effect and the general reliability of sense perception.
Along came Immanuel Kant who coined the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. Even if we doubt all else, if I think, I know at least I exist. It is true by definition, and is proof something exists. Someone may object "I think I don't exist," but such a statement still says "I think." It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, and is akin to saying soemthing like "this piece of chalk is not a piece of chalk," total rubbish. Myself denying that I exists still affirms that I exist.
So, we know for a fact that something exists, hence option one is irrational and impossible.
In my last blog I gave proof for why the universe cannot be self-created. Such a belief is irrational. For something to create itself it must exist before it exists. Hence option two is irrational and impossible.
At this point our two last options require the existence of something that is eternal, and self-existent (not created). This violates no principle of rationality or logic.
The third option, that the universe is self-existent and eternal, begs several questions. What part is eternal and self existent? I certainly am not. I had a definite start on March 1st, 1981, and require other things to continue my existence. The desk I am sitting at is not self existent or eternal. Nor is the sun, or anything in our solar system. Everything is winding itself down as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says (simplified) that everything tends toward disorder. To go toward order require energy input and intentionality/design. If everything is headed "down hill" toward disorder then that means...it was once ordered. That is what the Big Bang theory says, that all of existence was once compressed into an ordered dot a trillionth the size of a proton. To say a perfectly ordered, eternal dot spontaneously became unordered without any outside intereference violates the Law of Cause and Effect. So what caused it to become unordered, to explode?
Answers to this question fall into one of two catagories. Either the "scientist" will pull a quantum mechanics magic trick and resort to self creation (possibility two), which is impossible and irrational, or say something like "Speculations about what caused the Big Bang are not part of the testable, and falsifiable aspects of this theory." In other words...don't ask that, it isn't part of science. But oh, yes it is. Science is intimately concerned with cause and effect, and to write off the question about the First Cause as something we can't know or shouldn't be concerned with is a dishonest sham. I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
So if I am not eternal and self-existent, nor is anything close to me eternal and self-existent, then somewhere out there in the universe something else is. Far, far away there is some self-existent eternal orb. Starting to sound a lot like option four...
Having shown that option three is, at best nothing more than option four in disguise, or at worst irrational, we know that the universe was created by a self-existent, eternal being, which is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 and onward. An eternal, self-existing being is a logical necessity. The greek philosopher Aristotle called this self-existent, eternal being the Unmoved-Mover.
So what was the point of all of this? Someone might object that all we have done is to become theists, arriving logically at the door of the Lyceum. In the second century Tertullian famously propounded the rhetorical question "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" The Unmoved-Mover of Aristotle was an impersonal being that created out of necessity, without choice, a far cry from the God of Israel. But simply because the proof's I have shown are not a complete revelation of God does not mean that what I've shown isn't true. In fact, we cannot have a complete knowledge of God. It is precisely at this doctrine of Christianity, that there exists an eternal creative being, that the guns of atheists and agnostics are pointed at. Hence, the proofs I have shown are worthwhile. But they do not end there.
Our universe displays purpose, design, and intentionality. That means the eternal, self-existent Being is intentional and purposeful. If intentional and purposeful, then intelligent and with a capacity to chose (to will). If intellect and a will, then personality. This is exactly what the Bible teaches.
So if anything exists, God exists.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
No chance in Hell...or anywhere else for that matter.
At times we use a coin toss to make a decision, such as a football game, leaving the toss to "chance". Provided that the coin doesn't land on its side, what is the probability that a coin will land on tails? Given enough coin tosses averaged together, fifty percent. But for a single throw, it is impossible to predict the results. But is there really any chance involved? Supposing we had a vacuum sealed room with no air, hence no air friction, and a device that would launch a coin in to the air at the exact same speed, height, and angle, with the coin in the exact same position on the launcher. If we could so duplicate the initial starting conditions of the coin toss, with nothing to interfere, the odds that the coin would land on the same side every single time would be 100%. The problem with predicting a coin toss is that we cannot duplicate/know the initial starting conditions exactly, so we leave the results to "chance". There really is no "chance" -in the sense of actually being random- involved at all. Chance is simply a word we use to describe our ignorance, that we cannot know all of the complexities involved, nor are we able to control what we know to a high enough degree as to allow us to make accurate predictions.
This is why we cannot predict the weather far into the future. With all of our powerful radars and other equipment, it is impossible to know exactly the weather conditions at any given moment, nor to understand all of the minute events occurring throughout our galaxy that could impact our planet. Such small differences between what we measure and what the real conditions are, cause our weather predictions to drastically differ from reality over a long enough period of time. Unpredictable systems, like the weather, are called chaotic, perhaps even random, because they don't follow any of our models/predictions, but they are not really. We simply do not know everything, hence they appear random. But there is nothing random. There is no chance.
The last century spawned a new field of science called Quantum Physics/Quantum Mechanics which (simplified) deals with the study of atoms and their subatomic particles. Unfortunately for such study, it is impossible to know both the exact momentum and location of a particle at the same instant. This is known as Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We cannot explain what causes certain phenomena to happen at the atomic level, because it is impossible to know exactly what is happening at any given moment. This impossibility is built into the system, so let me state it again: we don't know what causes some effects. Some have made a leap of logic to say that since we don't know what is causing some effect, that NOTHING is causing the effect. This is illogical and irrational. The Law of Cause and Effect is that all effects must have a cause. It is true simply by definition. (Aside: Someone might object, saying I'm not a quantum physicist, which I'm not. Though I've taken a few classes, I am in no position to argue the results of their work. But I can evaluate the truth claims they make about those results.)
But when a teacher stands in front of a class and tells the students that 18-20 Billion years ago "nothing" exploded it is accepted as fact. Yet this is just as illogical and irrational. All effects must have a cause. So, the scientist says, it was caused by chance, a probability. But chance does not have any power (let alone ultimate power), nor does it have any being; it is simply a description of systems we do not understand. If nothing existed, there is no system to predict. "Ex nilhilo nihil fit" - Nothing comes from nothing. For something to create itself it would have to exist before it exists. Might as well stick the side of your finger to your lips and flail it up and down. This is nonsense, irrational, and it is not science.
And if at this point you find yourself believing that nothing exploded and produced everything, and that you don't believe in cause and effect, please tell the world. You will save us all the time from having to convince the world you are being irrational by telling them this yourself. :)
Thursday, February 9, 2006
I love Jesus, thats why I study theology.
As an introduction, various posts and responses about the virtues or evils of theology have been circulating as of late between Jessica and Randy, over here as well as over here. I figured it was about time I wade into the middle of it.
'Theology' has for many people a forbidding sound. For some it suggests 'theory', and the very last person to deal with the down-to-earth practicalities of life is surely a theorist. The self-help type books that abound these days stress practicalities and go easy on theology. In so doing they make a serious mistake. True theology has the most practical implications.
There is a theology/doctrine for everything from evangelism and worship to marriage and friendships. Do not such theologies involve an exposition of the biblical materials on the subject? Indeed they do, for theology has to build with the blocks of revelation which God has given and gives us in and through holy scripture.
A distinction exists between God and the Bible. We call the Bible God-inspired. In that sense we can even describe it as "divine." We can equate it with God's word or relate it to God's revelation. Yet the Bible is not God. We can learn about God in it. We have to do so. God reveals himself in and through the Bible. He speaks in and through it. Yet the Bible does not replace God. He has not just given us the Bible and left us to it. He Himself is still the one with whom we have to deal. And this, after all, is what theology is all about. As the term itself tells us, God stands at the center. Even as we consult holy scripture, we are really consulting God Himself in his self-revelation as he came and comes to us through holy scripture. God indeed says what scripture says, but this does not imply a direct equation of God and scripture.
Theology at its core must not be abstracted from God Himself, and God must be at the heart and center in his own relation to His creation.
We are to be understanders of the word, not readers only, deceiving ourselves. For if anyone reads the word and doesn't gain understanding, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. God tells us that His written Word is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16), and his Word functions as the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured. To claim the study of theology is anti-biblical is to claim the study of the bible, the study of God as He has revealed Himself, is anti-biblical.
I love Jesus Christ because He first loves me, and I love to dive into His word and understand what He has revealed. Thats why He revealed it, so we can understand it and be transformed by it.
You may not agree with what I believe about the Bible, about what I have come to understand about God's nature, God's purposes, what He has revealed. As Luther said best, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." You may disagree with me. But please do not insinuate that I have jettisoned the Bible in favor of theory, or relationship with God for religion of God.
If my arguments thus far have been self evident, and has thoroughly convinced you of the necessity of theology, then feel free to stop: go read your Bible and study theology. If not, read on: Bible Verses. But I warn you: by trying to understand what these scriptures mean, you will venture into the 'dark-void' of theology.
As a side challenge, try and count how many commands in scripture are impossible to follow without a study of theology/doctine. You will lose count.
'Theology' has for many people a forbidding sound. For some it suggests 'theory', and the very last person to deal with the down-to-earth practicalities of life is surely a theorist. The self-help type books that abound these days stress practicalities and go easy on theology. In so doing they make a serious mistake. True theology has the most practical implications.
There is a theology/doctrine for everything from evangelism and worship to marriage and friendships. Do not such theologies involve an exposition of the biblical materials on the subject? Indeed they do, for theology has to build with the blocks of revelation which God has given and gives us in and through holy scripture.
A distinction exists between God and the Bible. We call the Bible God-inspired. In that sense we can even describe it as "divine." We can equate it with God's word or relate it to God's revelation. Yet the Bible is not God. We can learn about God in it. We have to do so. God reveals himself in and through the Bible. He speaks in and through it. Yet the Bible does not replace God. He has not just given us the Bible and left us to it. He Himself is still the one with whom we have to deal. And this, after all, is what theology is all about. As the term itself tells us, God stands at the center. Even as we consult holy scripture, we are really consulting God Himself in his self-revelation as he came and comes to us through holy scripture. God indeed says what scripture says, but this does not imply a direct equation of God and scripture.
Theology at its core must not be abstracted from God Himself, and God must be at the heart and center in his own relation to His creation.
We are to be understanders of the word, not readers only, deceiving ourselves. For if anyone reads the word and doesn't gain understanding, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. God tells us that His written Word is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16), and his Word functions as the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured. To claim the study of theology is anti-biblical is to claim the study of the bible, the study of God as He has revealed Himself, is anti-biblical.
I love Jesus Christ because He first loves me, and I love to dive into His word and understand what He has revealed. Thats why He revealed it, so we can understand it and be transformed by it.
You may not agree with what I believe about the Bible, about what I have come to understand about God's nature, God's purposes, what He has revealed. As Luther said best, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." You may disagree with me. But please do not insinuate that I have jettisoned the Bible in favor of theory, or relationship with God for religion of God.
If my arguments thus far have been self evident, and has thoroughly convinced you of the necessity of theology, then feel free to stop: go read your Bible and study theology. If not, read on: Bible Verses. But I warn you: by trying to understand what these scriptures mean, you will venture into the 'dark-void' of theology.
As a side challenge, try and count how many commands in scripture are impossible to follow without a study of theology/doctine. You will lose count.
Monday, January 9, 2006
You must be born again. (John 3:1-21)
For the last week I have been working on memorizing Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21, with some success. I've got 3:16-21 pretty well, and today (Monday) I've worked on the earlier part off and on. Much insight is to be gained from this passage. Often quoted is john 3:16, which shows the simplicity of believing. But in this simplicity we must not overlook the hard truths and demands Jesus confronted Nicodemus with.
John the Apostle writes "1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”"
Nicodemus began speaking to Jesus with a confession of faith, but he had not yet come to see Christ as God incarnate, standing before him. His confession fell far short of the truth about Jesus, that He is much more than a teacher from God.
Without acknowledging, refuting, confirming, or denying Nicodemus's statement that He was from God, Jesus answered a question that Nicodemus had not even asked, demonstrating his omniscience, a first hint of his true identity: "3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”"
The phrase born again can also literally be translated "born from above." This answer shocked Nicodemus, who I'm sure would have expected Jesus to be pleased with his confession. Jesus read Nicodemus's heart and came to root problem, the need for regeneration or spiritual transformation produced by the Holy Spirit.
Before/Unless one is born again by the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God in a large sense is God's sovereign rule over his creation. Until Christ's return to judge the world in righteousness, God's sovereign reign takes on a special meaning, which is His sovereign reign in the hearts and minds of believers. Jesus described this narrower sense of the kingdom of in this way: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). God’s holiness and glory in his heavenly throne room is so overwhelming that all creatures there honor him with unqualified voluntary service. On earth, however, creatures rebel and refuse to acknowledge God as King, and evil kingdoms rise up to oppose God’s Kingdom. The hope that Scripture presents from cover to cover is that this disparity between the heavenly throne room and earth will be eliminated one day (1 Chr. 16:31). God will judge the wicked and bring redeemed humanity into a new creation (Isa. 65; Zech. 14). When this transformation takes place, only God’s kingdom will stand and voluntary obedience to him will extend to the ends of the earth as it does in heaven (1 Chr. 16:31; Ps. 97:1-2). The coming of the kingdom at the end of the age can be described as "regeneration" (Matt 19:28) but regeneration of the individual is required before the end of the world in order to enter the kingdom. In short, to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be saved.
You must be born from above, that is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, before you can see the truth, before you can be saved. Regeneration necissarily preceeds salvation.
Whether Nicodemus took Jesus literally about the need to be born again or was simply picking up on the figurative language, he was shocked by what Jesus said. John records that "4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”"
Jesus hits Nicodemus with a second shocking truth "5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." To be born of water and the Spirit is not refering to literal water, but the need for cleansing, as in Ezekiel 36:25, 27: "25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. [...]27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." This is the what it means to be born of water and the Spirit. Nestled right between those verses is another promise of God, Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." This is the new birth, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Dead people don't bring themselves to life, nor can a man give himself a heart transplant.
Summarizing/paraphrasing Jesus up to this point: Unless one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, one cannot see the truth. Regneration preceedes the spiritual sight necessary to percieve truth.(vs 3) Unless one has been spiritually cleansed (repentance) one cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven (be saved) (vs 5).
And to leave no doubt about where this spiritual cleansing that produces repentance comes from, Jesus continues: "“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”"
Only the Holy Spirit produces spiritual effects, such as faith, repentance, a new heart with new desires. The Holy Spirit goes where it wishes, renews those that it wills. We can't understand where this will happen, who it will happen to, but the evidence that it does is evident. A teacher such as Nicodemus would have understood what Jesus meant here about being born again from above. And it shocked him. As a legalistic pharisee, the truth that he could do nothing for himself, that in fact he needed to start all over, and only God could give him the cleansing and spiritual regneration. He could not do it for himself. He must be born from above.
After shocking Nicodemus with the truth that he must be spiritually purified and spiritually reborn before he can enter the Kingdom of God, Jesus gently chided Nicodemus, "7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"
John records "9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”" I've asked the same thing myself many times before. Everyone who really deals with the isues presented by scripture instead of sweeping them under the rug will as well. Don't feel alone.
"10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" As Jesus mentions, Nicodemus was the pre-eminant teacher in all of Israel, yet understood very little of the scriptures. But he should have. The Old Testament plainly taught the way of salvation, but men's spiritual deadness kept them from seeing the truth.
Jesus told Nicodemus that he "did not believe" and "did not receive." Faith comes before full understanding. (see 1 Corinthians 2:14)
Nicodemus did not want to confess himself to be a helpless sinner. And like many of us, if we can't claim all the credit for our salvation, well, I'll claim just a little of it then. John records "3 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." Again, Jesus attacked Nicodemus system of works. You must be born again.
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Christ had to come and be lifted up on the cross that we might be saved. We must forsake believing we can do anything at all to save ourselves and believe in Christ to save us and provide for what we need.
That is the offer to often quoted "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Those who believe are not condemned. Those who do not believe are condemned already. But theres a problem:"19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."
No one fits the description! There are none willing, because men loved darkness rather than light (thats you and me) because our deeds are evil (thats because we are by nature of the fall evil). We don't only love darkness by nature, we hate the light, and wont come to the light.
But God will not be thwarted. "21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”" There are none willing naturally, and thats why "you must be born again." Those who do come to the light show that they have been renewed by God, that their deeds have been performed in the grace god has sovereignly given.
And what shall we say to thse things? Praise be to God, that though we redeemed deserve eternal punishment just like the rest, God has chosen us based on the council of His good will! Love and worship God as he so deserves. Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done, on earth (and in me) as it is in heaven!
John the Apostle writes "1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”"
Nicodemus began speaking to Jesus with a confession of faith, but he had not yet come to see Christ as God incarnate, standing before him. His confession fell far short of the truth about Jesus, that He is much more than a teacher from God.
Without acknowledging, refuting, confirming, or denying Nicodemus's statement that He was from God, Jesus answered a question that Nicodemus had not even asked, demonstrating his omniscience, a first hint of his true identity: "3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”"
The phrase born again can also literally be translated "born from above." This answer shocked Nicodemus, who I'm sure would have expected Jesus to be pleased with his confession. Jesus read Nicodemus's heart and came to root problem, the need for regeneration or spiritual transformation produced by the Holy Spirit.
Before/Unless one is born again by the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God in a large sense is God's sovereign rule over his creation. Until Christ's return to judge the world in righteousness, God's sovereign reign takes on a special meaning, which is His sovereign reign in the hearts and minds of believers. Jesus described this narrower sense of the kingdom of in this way: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). God’s holiness and glory in his heavenly throne room is so overwhelming that all creatures there honor him with unqualified voluntary service. On earth, however, creatures rebel and refuse to acknowledge God as King, and evil kingdoms rise up to oppose God’s Kingdom. The hope that Scripture presents from cover to cover is that this disparity between the heavenly throne room and earth will be eliminated one day (1 Chr. 16:31). God will judge the wicked and bring redeemed humanity into a new creation (Isa. 65; Zech. 14). When this transformation takes place, only God’s kingdom will stand and voluntary obedience to him will extend to the ends of the earth as it does in heaven (1 Chr. 16:31; Ps. 97:1-2). The coming of the kingdom at the end of the age can be described as "regeneration" (Matt 19:28) but regeneration of the individual is required before the end of the world in order to enter the kingdom. In short, to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be saved.
You must be born from above, that is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, before you can see the truth, before you can be saved. Regeneration necissarily preceeds salvation.
Whether Nicodemus took Jesus literally about the need to be born again or was simply picking up on the figurative language, he was shocked by what Jesus said. John records that "4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”"
Jesus hits Nicodemus with a second shocking truth "5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." To be born of water and the Spirit is not refering to literal water, but the need for cleansing, as in Ezekiel 36:25, 27: "25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. [...]27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." This is the what it means to be born of water and the Spirit. Nestled right between those verses is another promise of God, Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." This is the new birth, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Dead people don't bring themselves to life, nor can a man give himself a heart transplant.
Summarizing/paraphrasing Jesus up to this point: Unless one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, one cannot see the truth. Regneration preceedes the spiritual sight necessary to percieve truth.(vs 3) Unless one has been spiritually cleansed (repentance) one cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven (be saved) (vs 5).
And to leave no doubt about where this spiritual cleansing that produces repentance comes from, Jesus continues: "“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”"
Only the Holy Spirit produces spiritual effects, such as faith, repentance, a new heart with new desires. The Holy Spirit goes where it wishes, renews those that it wills. We can't understand where this will happen, who it will happen to, but the evidence that it does is evident. A teacher such as Nicodemus would have understood what Jesus meant here about being born again from above. And it shocked him. As a legalistic pharisee, the truth that he could do nothing for himself, that in fact he needed to start all over, and only God could give him the cleansing and spiritual regneration. He could not do it for himself. He must be born from above.
After shocking Nicodemus with the truth that he must be spiritually purified and spiritually reborn before he can enter the Kingdom of God, Jesus gently chided Nicodemus, "7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"
John records "9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”" I've asked the same thing myself many times before. Everyone who really deals with the isues presented by scripture instead of sweeping them under the rug will as well. Don't feel alone.
"10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" As Jesus mentions, Nicodemus was the pre-eminant teacher in all of Israel, yet understood very little of the scriptures. But he should have. The Old Testament plainly taught the way of salvation, but men's spiritual deadness kept them from seeing the truth.
Jesus told Nicodemus that he "did not believe" and "did not receive." Faith comes before full understanding. (see 1 Corinthians 2:14)
Nicodemus did not want to confess himself to be a helpless sinner. And like many of us, if we can't claim all the credit for our salvation, well, I'll claim just a little of it then. John records "3 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." Again, Jesus attacked Nicodemus system of works. You must be born again.
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Christ had to come and be lifted up on the cross that we might be saved. We must forsake believing we can do anything at all to save ourselves and believe in Christ to save us and provide for what we need.
That is the offer to often quoted "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Those who believe are not condemned. Those who do not believe are condemned already. But theres a problem:"19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."
No one fits the description! There are none willing, because men loved darkness rather than light (thats you and me) because our deeds are evil (thats because we are by nature of the fall evil). We don't only love darkness by nature, we hate the light, and wont come to the light.
But God will not be thwarted. "21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”" There are none willing naturally, and thats why "you must be born again." Those who do come to the light show that they have been renewed by God, that their deeds have been performed in the grace god has sovereignly given.
And what shall we say to thse things? Praise be to God, that though we redeemed deserve eternal punishment just like the rest, God has chosen us based on the council of His good will! Love and worship God as he so deserves. Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done, on earth (and in me) as it is in heaven!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)