One afternoon when I was twelve, my grandmother drove me to a friend's house. She asked me, "Have you ever spoken in tongues?"
I didn't know what she meant, so I told her I hadn't. "What is that anyway?" I asked.
"Well, some people say it's praying, but they speak in gibberish over and over again. If anyone asks you to do it, don't. It's not right. Matthew 6:7 says we shouldn't babble like the pagans do."
Since none of it made sense to me, I let it go. A few months later, I read 1 Corinthians and wondered why my grandmother didn't talk about this part of the Bible when she mentioned speaking in tongues.
Growing up in the Baptist tradition, we didn't talk much about the Holy Spirit. Then, when I began attending an Assemblies of God school at the age of thirteen, I heard about the Holy Spirit all the time. On one hand, the Holy Spirit was the part of the Trinity we talked about during baptism, or He was the thing that helped me make sense of the Bible. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit made church a party and everyone got awesome gifts. It was hard to know which side was right.
Emotions can run high with a topic like this. I've written on the Holy Spirit before, once or twice, but today I want to talk about some basic reasons why Christians need the Holy Spirit.
Yes, yes, I know. The gifts and work of the Holy Spirit have been abused or counterfeited enough to freak out some more conservative Christians. And yes, some of their objections are legitimate. Of course, some of those objections have caused people to overreact. I've seen something of both sides in this conflict. That's why I want to look at what scripture says and see how it can answer some questions from both sides.
First, the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity. He is not only a distinct person but also the active presence of God in the world. Genesis 1:2 notes the Spirit separately from God the Father in verse 1. Verses like Exodus 35:31 with the Hebrew craftsmen, Numbers 11:25 with the tribal elders, and Judges 6:34 with Gideon show the Holy Spirit coming upon men and giving them special ability to do God's work in the world. Priests, judges, prophets, and kings were typically men who moved in the power of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. More than this, though, the Old Testament gives a very special key to understanding the importance of the Holy Spirit.
The Tabernacle in the law of Moses, and later the Temple in Jerusalem, served as the place where God's Spirit dwelt with His people. God instructed Moses to build the Tabernacle for this purpose in Exodus 25:8, "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them." In a world where sin separated man from God's presence, the Temple was the only place where man could come into the presence of God.
Terry Virgo noted this as the primary reason why the disciples followed Jesus. They wanted to be with Him. When Jesus told His disciples of the day when He would leave, He said in John 16:6-7, "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (that is the Spirit) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you" Sorrow filled their hearts, said Virgo, because of the thought they wouldn't be with Jesus, God the Son, anymore. Jesus understood this, which is why He knew it would comfort them to know, "I'm leaving, but God the Spirit will come in my place." And this was better, said Virgo, because though Jesus could be with some people some of the time, the Holy Spirit could be with all believers all of the time.
In the New Testament church, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would give His followers power to spread the gospel (Acts 1:8). This was first demonstrated on Pentecost in Acts 2 when the Spirit moved among those praying in the upper room. The Apostle Paul taught on the gifts of the Spirit, ways in which the Holy Spirit manifested among people to glorify God, in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In this section of scripture, Paul talks of prophecy, speaking in tongues (or other languages unknown to the speaker), interpretation of tongues, and healing. These are just some of the gifts mentioned throughout the epistles.
It's obvious that Christians should value the Holy Spirit, not only as God, but also in terms of His presence at work among them. Jesus thought it important enough to encourage His disciples with the coming Spirit. Paul felt it essential for the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19 to be filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit. In the Acts 2 sermon, Peter said those who believed in Jesus would receive the Holy Spirit.
My objection to some of the things I saw in the charismatic movement had nothing to do with the gifts themselves, but rather the lack of fruit I sometimes saw in people. By that, I mean the fruit of the Spirit Paul listed in Galatians 5:22-23. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law"
In The Holy Spirit And You, Dennis and Rita Bennet made an appeal for maturity in the charismatic movement. Bennet said he heard some say they couldn't control themselves when the Spirit came upon them. First, he quoted 1 Corinthians 14:32, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." That's not to say we control The Spirit, but rather people experiencing a legitimate prophetic gift should exercise self-control, one of the Galatians 5 fruits of the Spirit. Bennet compares it to how a person responds to a dirty joke. A mature person will exercise self-control and keep himself from laughing if it's inappropriate.
What have your experiences been? If you grew up in the church, did you have any experience with the Holy Spirit? Or was the experience of God your only topic? Do you know if you've received the Holy Spirit into your life, allowed Him to work in you? Or, if you're not a Christian, do you have some confusion between the Holy Spirit and any other spiritual experience you might have encountered? Do you think there's a difference? At this stage, I hope you now know we can't ignore the Holy Spirit. He is as essential to Christian life as sunlight to vitamin D, our faith isn't much good without Him.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
It's Not The Band I Hate, It's Their Fans - Why Christians need the church.
"I believe in God, but I don't agree with organized religion."
"Isn't the church supposed to be anybody who believes in Jesus? Why do we need an institution to believe in Him?"
"The church burned me, so I don't go anymore."
You've probably heard this sort of thing on more than one occasion. You may even say it yourself. When I was a teenager, the men running the youth group compelled me to become the worship leader. I was sixteen. two years later, when I realized I had serious sin issues to deal with, I told the youth pastor of my decision to step down from leadership. He tried everything to get me to change my mind until finally he said, "If you stop leading worship now, you'll never lead worship again." He told me I would lose the gift. I tried attending meetings once or twice after this happened, but I couldn't handle the stress of people trying to force me back on stage. As a result, I stopped going to church altogether for a long time.
That's my burn story. I think just about everybody has at least one story telling of how someone in the church hurt them. Some are more subtle, like feeling overlooked and unloved. Some are just puzzling, like how my brother was kicked out of a youth group for smelling like smoke. Still others are horrifying, like the stories of molestation and other abuse.
In the last decade or so, I've seen a growing number of people tell me they love God but hate the church. At first, this sounds as logical as liking a band but hating their fans. "Lord, save me from Your followers," and all that. A few years ago, I worked on a film with director Rik Swartzwelder. He and I got to talking one day about the Emergent Church movement. He told me, "It seems like this whole thing happened because some people were hurt and decided they had an axe to grind with the church. But I wonder if what they're doing is going to turn out any better."
So what should followers of Jesus do? Should we respond to the failures of men by rejecting the church or by understanding and seeking a biblical church with good leadership?
To start, I think we should read the Bible and see what Jesus said. In Matthew 28:19, He told His followers to make disciples. That doesn't mean to simply make converts, dunk them in water, then move on to the next unbeliever. Jesus spent years pouring into the lives of his disciples, teaching and correcting them. For that to happen, the disciples had to gather. I think Jesus always intended to establish the church. He told His disciples of it when Peter proclaimed Him as the Messiah in Matthew 16. In chapter 18, He told them how to deal with conflict among believers, telling them to present a case before the church if the offender refuses to repent. Most importantly, Jesus repeatedly told His disciples to treat each other with humility. He did so in Matthew 18:4, John 13:14, and Luke 14:11.
Many of the epistles in the New Testament are instructions on how the church should function. Paul opened his letter to Titus with guidelines for appointing church leaders, or elders. James 5 says elders are to pray for those in sickness. Paul also told Titus and Timothy to teach sound doctrine to the church and warned them against deceivers.
I especially like 1 Peter 5:1-5 as a guideline for good church leadership. "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for 'God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"
There are those who today would say the church shouldn't have leaders who hold office, that there's no hierarchy in God's church. I would agree that the church shouldn't have leaders acting like princes, lording power and influence from "the people". I don't think it should be a matter of control, but rather of servant-leadership, following Jesus' example.
A biblical church will have members and leaders who demonstrate humility and participation. I feel like this would be a good time to quote C.J. Mahaney from a section called Just Being Together Isn't Sufficient in his book Humility. "I hope you're meeting regularly with others for fellowship and accountability, but please know that for this to be a means of grace and growth in your life, two things are required as an expression of your faith.
"First, humbly recognize your need for others. I'm convinced that left to myself, if I'm seeking to grow by myself, I'll only be deficient in discerning the sin within, and I'll therefore experience only limited growth in godliness. That's why I need the care and correction of my wife and fellow team members, and why I must pursue their care and correction. I need help, and so do you. You can't effectively watch yourself by yourself; you need the discerning eyes of others.
"The second requirement for effective small-group fellowship and accountability is that you and I must aggressively participate. Don't assume that by merely attending a group, by merely associating with those who are godly, you're therefore satisfying God and growing in godliness. That is deception."
Participation is scary, though. It means letting other people into your life and having the courage to join people in theirs. After my own bad experience, I left the church and treated it with much cynicism. Only when I asked Pastor Craig Brown why anyone would want to become a "member" did I finally understand the importance of participation. He said, "Let me ask you a question. You have a lot of spiritual gifts, don't you?" I told him I did. Then he asked, "But you don't have anyone in authority over you teaching you how to use those gifts effectively?" I laughed nervously and admitted I didn't. Not only that, but I realized I had no place to use those gifts in a way that would bless others and allow for others to bless me. That's when I knew God wanted me in a church.
What about you? What's your experience? What do you think about the Bible's emphasis on the church meeting together? Are you like many, struggling to act with humility and aggressive participation? Know this: you're not alone in your pain and confusion with the church. The question is whether or not you plan to do anything good about it.
"Isn't the church supposed to be anybody who believes in Jesus? Why do we need an institution to believe in Him?"
"The church burned me, so I don't go anymore."
You've probably heard this sort of thing on more than one occasion. You may even say it yourself. When I was a teenager, the men running the youth group compelled me to become the worship leader. I was sixteen. two years later, when I realized I had serious sin issues to deal with, I told the youth pastor of my decision to step down from leadership. He tried everything to get me to change my mind until finally he said, "If you stop leading worship now, you'll never lead worship again." He told me I would lose the gift. I tried attending meetings once or twice after this happened, but I couldn't handle the stress of people trying to force me back on stage. As a result, I stopped going to church altogether for a long time.
That's my burn story. I think just about everybody has at least one story telling of how someone in the church hurt them. Some are more subtle, like feeling overlooked and unloved. Some are just puzzling, like how my brother was kicked out of a youth group for smelling like smoke. Still others are horrifying, like the stories of molestation and other abuse.
In the last decade or so, I've seen a growing number of people tell me they love God but hate the church. At first, this sounds as logical as liking a band but hating their fans. "Lord, save me from Your followers," and all that. A few years ago, I worked on a film with director Rik Swartzwelder. He and I got to talking one day about the Emergent Church movement. He told me, "It seems like this whole thing happened because some people were hurt and decided they had an axe to grind with the church. But I wonder if what they're doing is going to turn out any better."
So what should followers of Jesus do? Should we respond to the failures of men by rejecting the church or by understanding and seeking a biblical church with good leadership?
To start, I think we should read the Bible and see what Jesus said. In Matthew 28:19, He told His followers to make disciples. That doesn't mean to simply make converts, dunk them in water, then move on to the next unbeliever. Jesus spent years pouring into the lives of his disciples, teaching and correcting them. For that to happen, the disciples had to gather. I think Jesus always intended to establish the church. He told His disciples of it when Peter proclaimed Him as the Messiah in Matthew 16. In chapter 18, He told them how to deal with conflict among believers, telling them to present a case before the church if the offender refuses to repent. Most importantly, Jesus repeatedly told His disciples to treat each other with humility. He did so in Matthew 18:4, John 13:14, and Luke 14:11.
Many of the epistles in the New Testament are instructions on how the church should function. Paul opened his letter to Titus with guidelines for appointing church leaders, or elders. James 5 says elders are to pray for those in sickness. Paul also told Titus and Timothy to teach sound doctrine to the church and warned them against deceivers.
I especially like 1 Peter 5:1-5 as a guideline for good church leadership. "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for 'God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"
There are those who today would say the church shouldn't have leaders who hold office, that there's no hierarchy in God's church. I would agree that the church shouldn't have leaders acting like princes, lording power and influence from "the people". I don't think it should be a matter of control, but rather of servant-leadership, following Jesus' example.
A biblical church will have members and leaders who demonstrate humility and participation. I feel like this would be a good time to quote C.J. Mahaney from a section called Just Being Together Isn't Sufficient in his book Humility. "I hope you're meeting regularly with others for fellowship and accountability, but please know that for this to be a means of grace and growth in your life, two things are required as an expression of your faith.
"First, humbly recognize your need for others. I'm convinced that left to myself, if I'm seeking to grow by myself, I'll only be deficient in discerning the sin within, and I'll therefore experience only limited growth in godliness. That's why I need the care and correction of my wife and fellow team members, and why I must pursue their care and correction. I need help, and so do you. You can't effectively watch yourself by yourself; you need the discerning eyes of others.
"The second requirement for effective small-group fellowship and accountability is that you and I must aggressively participate. Don't assume that by merely attending a group, by merely associating with those who are godly, you're therefore satisfying God and growing in godliness. That is deception."
Participation is scary, though. It means letting other people into your life and having the courage to join people in theirs. After my own bad experience, I left the church and treated it with much cynicism. Only when I asked Pastor Craig Brown why anyone would want to become a "member" did I finally understand the importance of participation. He said, "Let me ask you a question. You have a lot of spiritual gifts, don't you?" I told him I did. Then he asked, "But you don't have anyone in authority over you teaching you how to use those gifts effectively?" I laughed nervously and admitted I didn't. Not only that, but I realized I had no place to use those gifts in a way that would bless others and allow for others to bless me. That's when I knew God wanted me in a church.
What about you? What's your experience? What do you think about the Bible's emphasis on the church meeting together? Are you like many, struggling to act with humility and aggressive participation? Know this: you're not alone in your pain and confusion with the church. The question is whether or not you plan to do anything good about it.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Drawing A Clearer Line - Some thoughts on the difference between a Christian and a person who talks about Jesus.
When I began to write this series on basic Christian living, I knew I would primarily address those who attended church or claimed to believe in Jesus, calling themselves Christians. For some, I hope this series gives them understanding on why Christians do and believe certain things like the Bible, the effectiveness of prayer, etc. I began with another goal for these essays, to draw lines between those who admire Jesus as a spiritual teacher and those who worship Him as God the Son.
Something stirred during the last few weeks while I continued to live in a home without internet access. A person left an anonymous comment on Back To Boardgames using language I have heard from people who believe in Universalism or what Francis Schaeffer called "Paneverythingism". It looks like a continuation of an earlier comment that for one reason or another isn't available.
But there you can see why I chose to draw these lines. This kind of thinking denies Jesus as God and His work of redemption, the foundation of Christian belief. In Romans 1, Paul introduces himself as one who lives to tell the gospel and defines it as the gospel promised through the Bible. He also makes clear this gospel deals with God's son, Jesus. In verses 18-20, Paul talks of evil men suppressing truth made known to them by God. Then, in verses 21-23, we read why wicked people denied the truth of God. "Although they know who God is, they do not glorify Him as God or thank Him. On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts have become darkened. Claiming to be wise, they have become fools! In fact, they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for mere images, like a mortal human being, or like birds, animals, or reptiles!"
One great definition of sin says we do so by worshiping, or glorifying, anything but God. It is to place anything above God. To think of something as more beautiful, trustworthy, or ultimate than God is to sin against Him. Satan's downfall came when he said to himself "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). He then planted the same lie in Eve's ear when he told her in Genesis 3:5, "you will be like God". Some claim that man's consciousness (whether the power of an individual mind, collective, vaguely defined spiritual "force", etc.) or thinking need only be corrected in order to achieve enlightenment. This kind of belief, and others like it, in one way or another conclude that we are, or are like, God. This kind of thinking is the very core of sin.
But these people who deny the God of the Bible must also deny the doctrine of sin. If we are our own gods, or if god is an impersonal force, than we have no outside standard from a perfect and unchanging God to which we must answer. If there is no sin, then Jesus had no need to die as payment.
My objective at this moment isn't to debate the existence of the biblical God, the reality of sin, or the redemptive work of Jesus. I want people to realize that they may sit in a church meeting next to people who agree with the kind of things said by my anonymous critic. They might sing the same songs of worship, recite words from the Bible, or help with community outreach.
But do not be fooled. Jesus did say He was God the Son. The Jews recognized this in John 5:18. He also made it clear that people had to believe in Him in order to gain eternal life when He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6). Jesus talked about Hell more than anyone else in the Bible, He said He was the Messiah (meaning He knew He would pay the price for man's sin), and He believed in the authority of scripture because He quoted the Tanakh (Old Testament) as such. Some people can say they believe in Jesus and yet miss His whole message.
If a person believes in Jesus as God the Son, then he will live a life of repentance and worship the God of the Bible alone. If he merely calls Jesus a spiritual teacher or a "good guy who set an example for us all", he should stop pretending to agree with Jesus and never refer to himself as a Christian.
I'm glad the person leaving the comment chose to remain anonymous because I want to attack the thought and not the person. My response to people like my anonymous critic, Wiccan neighbor, and Jehovah's Witness co-worker is to pray for them. I believe the Holy Spirit can turn their hearts to repentance by revealing both the ugliness of their sin and the goodness of God's grace. It's the reason I never addressed the critic directly. I do have an adversary, but he's not flesh and blood, and he's the reason I draw the line.
*Believe it or not, this experience has encouraged me to next write on why Christians need the Church. See you next month.
Something stirred during the last few weeks while I continued to live in a home without internet access. A person left an anonymous comment on Back To Boardgames using language I have heard from people who believe in Universalism or what Francis Schaeffer called "Paneverythingism". It looks like a continuation of an earlier comment that for one reason or another isn't available.
But there you can see why I chose to draw these lines. This kind of thinking denies Jesus as God and His work of redemption, the foundation of Christian belief. In Romans 1, Paul introduces himself as one who lives to tell the gospel and defines it as the gospel promised through the Bible. He also makes clear this gospel deals with God's son, Jesus. In verses 18-20, Paul talks of evil men suppressing truth made known to them by God. Then, in verses 21-23, we read why wicked people denied the truth of God. "Although they know who God is, they do not glorify Him as God or thank Him. On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts have become darkened. Claiming to be wise, they have become fools! In fact, they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for mere images, like a mortal human being, or like birds, animals, or reptiles!"
One great definition of sin says we do so by worshiping, or glorifying, anything but God. It is to place anything above God. To think of something as more beautiful, trustworthy, or ultimate than God is to sin against Him. Satan's downfall came when he said to himself "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). He then planted the same lie in Eve's ear when he told her in Genesis 3:5, "you will be like God". Some claim that man's consciousness (whether the power of an individual mind, collective, vaguely defined spiritual "force", etc.) or thinking need only be corrected in order to achieve enlightenment. This kind of belief, and others like it, in one way or another conclude that we are, or are like, God. This kind of thinking is the very core of sin.
But these people who deny the God of the Bible must also deny the doctrine of sin. If we are our own gods, or if god is an impersonal force, than we have no outside standard from a perfect and unchanging God to which we must answer. If there is no sin, then Jesus had no need to die as payment.
My objective at this moment isn't to debate the existence of the biblical God, the reality of sin, or the redemptive work of Jesus. I want people to realize that they may sit in a church meeting next to people who agree with the kind of things said by my anonymous critic. They might sing the same songs of worship, recite words from the Bible, or help with community outreach.
But do not be fooled. Jesus did say He was God the Son. The Jews recognized this in John 5:18. He also made it clear that people had to believe in Him in order to gain eternal life when He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6). Jesus talked about Hell more than anyone else in the Bible, He said He was the Messiah (meaning He knew He would pay the price for man's sin), and He believed in the authority of scripture because He quoted the Tanakh (Old Testament) as such. Some people can say they believe in Jesus and yet miss His whole message.
If a person believes in Jesus as God the Son, then he will live a life of repentance and worship the God of the Bible alone. If he merely calls Jesus a spiritual teacher or a "good guy who set an example for us all", he should stop pretending to agree with Jesus and never refer to himself as a Christian.
I'm glad the person leaving the comment chose to remain anonymous because I want to attack the thought and not the person. My response to people like my anonymous critic, Wiccan neighbor, and Jehovah's Witness co-worker is to pray for them. I believe the Holy Spirit can turn their hearts to repentance by revealing both the ugliness of their sin and the goodness of God's grace. It's the reason I never addressed the critic directly. I do have an adversary, but he's not flesh and blood, and he's the reason I draw the line.
*Believe it or not, this experience has encouraged me to next write on why Christians need the Church. See you next month.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is This Thing On? – A brief message on why Christians pray.
I knew at some point in this series on basic Christian living I'd have to talk about prayer. Christians do it all the time. But has anyone explained to you why? Haven't we all heard people describe feeling like their prayers hit the ceiling and fall splat on the floor like an undercooked pancake? Haven't we felt once or twice like our prayers don't do any good? Still, those who read the Bible and live by what it says can't ignore verses like Psalm 5:3. "In the morning, O Lord, you will hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer to you and eagerly watch." Not only should a Christian pray, but he should expect God to both hear and respond to the prayer.
Early in the drafting process of Stark Raving Obedience, Dad and I added a Lily Tomlin bit somewhere in the text. "Why is it when a person talks to God it's called prayer, but when God talks to a person it's called schizophrenia?" The first half of our book deals with the reality of God speaking to people. I could easily rattle off the verses we cite about God speaking, people hearing His voice, the verbal guidance of the Holy Spirit, and so on. When I thought about verses talking of God hearing people, I had a harder time coming up with examples.
I mean, it's in there. The Bible definitely talks about God hearing prayers. In my search for good examples, I went where anyone would go: The Beginning. Nobody makes an explanation of prayer in Genesis. No, "Adam heard the Lord and called out, 'Who said that?' And thus did Adam speak the first prayer unto the Lord." Nope. People and God talk to each other as if that sort of thing happened all the time. Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, all sorts of people. It doesn't even sound like prayer was anything different than simply talking to God until Genesis 4:29, "At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." I don't think this means God couldn't keep up with all the people trying to talk to Him at once. Prayer isn't like Santa's workshop, receiving millions of letters and sorting them based on importance and a naughty/nice list. It would make more sense to see this text as people realizing just how much sin had caused separation in their relationships with God. Maybe they felt like their prayers hit the ceiling and it freaked them out.
As my research went on, I found lots of passages where God hears the prayers of Kings and Prophets. In 1 Kings 9:3, God tells Solomon he heard the King's prayers. When King Hezekiah finds out he'll probably die of a particular illness, he prays for God to heal him. God tells Hezekiah in Isaiah 38, "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life." The leaders of Jerusalem asked Jeremiah to give them a word from the Lord and Jeremiah, knowing they had wrong motives, responded, "I have heard you. Behold, I am going to pray to the Lord your God in accordance with your words; and I will tell you the whole message which the Lord will answer you. I will not keep back a word from you." I can relate to Jeremiah's frustration. Why didn't the rulers just pray to God themselves? In another passage, Ezekiel tells the people of Edom that God hears more than prayers when he says in 35:12, "Then you will know that I, the Lord, have heard your revilings which you have spoken against the mountains of Israel." In Micah 7:7, the prophet says with straightforward confidence, "My God will hear me."
But those men had special distinction. They were recognized Prophets and Kings. Of course God would hear their prayers. Then I reread a verse in Habakkuk 1. The Prophet feels like his prayers hit the ceiling, too. You can hear his confusion in 1:2 when he says, "How long, O Lord, will I call for help, and you will not hear? I cry out to you, 'Violence!' Yet you do not save." Once in a while, even men of spiritual distinction ask God, "What the eff?" This passage should give us some comfort. God never promises to answer our prayers quickly or in the way we expect.
Isn't that great? I spent all of July talking about the authority and need for the Bible because it lays a foundation for our understanding of a relationship with God. The Bible doesn't just say God will hear and prayers and respond to them, it also says we'll sometimes feel like He's not listening. But that's just how we can sometimes feel. Scripture is clear. God hears us. This is why He laid out the plan of redemption. It makes Him happy when we pray.
As for God talking back to us, I feel like I've written at length on that topic already. Suffice to say for now the Bible also tells us we'll hear from God. I bring up July's discussion on scriptural authority because some people have expressed concern over the topic of listening prayer. One lady told me I was playing a "dangerous game" listening to voices in the spiritual realm. "How can you know it's really God and not something evil?" She wasn't trying to put me in my place. The look on her face told me she genuinely cared about my soul.
I tried to explain, as I often do, "Everything spoken from God has to line up with the Bible."
She didn't seem comforted by my response. "I know you mean well. Just be careful with that sort of thing."
As long as I'm talking about prayer, I may as well attempt to clear this misunderstanding. God will only say things that confirm what He said in the Bible. Listening prayer, hearing from the Holy Spirit, isn't new revelation. It's just personal. It's as if the Holy Spirit was telling you a personal application of the Bible in a way that doesn't feel like a freakin' Sunday School lesson. The more a person reads the Bible, the more they recognize the voice of God because it agrees with what He said in scripture. It might even help us to get over that ceiling-effect. We'll always hear God respond to our prayers in the Bible, even if it's just to say, "Don't worry. I hear you."
Early in the drafting process of Stark Raving Obedience, Dad and I added a Lily Tomlin bit somewhere in the text. "Why is it when a person talks to God it's called prayer, but when God talks to a person it's called schizophrenia?" The first half of our book deals with the reality of God speaking to people. I could easily rattle off the verses we cite about God speaking, people hearing His voice, the verbal guidance of the Holy Spirit, and so on. When I thought about verses talking of God hearing people, I had a harder time coming up with examples.
I mean, it's in there. The Bible definitely talks about God hearing prayers. In my search for good examples, I went where anyone would go: The Beginning. Nobody makes an explanation of prayer in Genesis. No, "Adam heard the Lord and called out, 'Who said that?' And thus did Adam speak the first prayer unto the Lord." Nope. People and God talk to each other as if that sort of thing happened all the time. Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, all sorts of people. It doesn't even sound like prayer was anything different than simply talking to God until Genesis 4:29, "At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." I don't think this means God couldn't keep up with all the people trying to talk to Him at once. Prayer isn't like Santa's workshop, receiving millions of letters and sorting them based on importance and a naughty/nice list. It would make more sense to see this text as people realizing just how much sin had caused separation in their relationships with God. Maybe they felt like their prayers hit the ceiling and it freaked them out.
As my research went on, I found lots of passages where God hears the prayers of Kings and Prophets. In 1 Kings 9:3, God tells Solomon he heard the King's prayers. When King Hezekiah finds out he'll probably die of a particular illness, he prays for God to heal him. God tells Hezekiah in Isaiah 38, "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life." The leaders of Jerusalem asked Jeremiah to give them a word from the Lord and Jeremiah, knowing they had wrong motives, responded, "I have heard you. Behold, I am going to pray to the Lord your God in accordance with your words; and I will tell you the whole message which the Lord will answer you. I will not keep back a word from you." I can relate to Jeremiah's frustration. Why didn't the rulers just pray to God themselves? In another passage, Ezekiel tells the people of Edom that God hears more than prayers when he says in 35:12, "Then you will know that I, the Lord, have heard your revilings which you have spoken against the mountains of Israel." In Micah 7:7, the prophet says with straightforward confidence, "My God will hear me."
But those men had special distinction. They were recognized Prophets and Kings. Of course God would hear their prayers. Then I reread a verse in Habakkuk 1. The Prophet feels like his prayers hit the ceiling, too. You can hear his confusion in 1:2 when he says, "How long, O Lord, will I call for help, and you will not hear? I cry out to you, 'Violence!' Yet you do not save." Once in a while, even men of spiritual distinction ask God, "What the eff?" This passage should give us some comfort. God never promises to answer our prayers quickly or in the way we expect.
Isn't that great? I spent all of July talking about the authority and need for the Bible because it lays a foundation for our understanding of a relationship with God. The Bible doesn't just say God will hear and prayers and respond to them, it also says we'll sometimes feel like He's not listening. But that's just how we can sometimes feel. Scripture is clear. God hears us. This is why He laid out the plan of redemption. It makes Him happy when we pray.
As for God talking back to us, I feel like I've written at length on that topic already. Suffice to say for now the Bible also tells us we'll hear from God. I bring up July's discussion on scriptural authority because some people have expressed concern over the topic of listening prayer. One lady told me I was playing a "dangerous game" listening to voices in the spiritual realm. "How can you know it's really God and not something evil?" She wasn't trying to put me in my place. The look on her face told me she genuinely cared about my soul.
I tried to explain, as I often do, "Everything spoken from God has to line up with the Bible."
She didn't seem comforted by my response. "I know you mean well. Just be careful with that sort of thing."
As long as I'm talking about prayer, I may as well attempt to clear this misunderstanding. God will only say things that confirm what He said in the Bible. Listening prayer, hearing from the Holy Spirit, isn't new revelation. It's just personal. It's as if the Holy Spirit was telling you a personal application of the Bible in a way that doesn't feel like a freakin' Sunday School lesson. The more a person reads the Bible, the more they recognize the voice of God because it agrees with what He said in scripture. It might even help us to get over that ceiling-effect. We'll always hear God respond to our prayers in the Bible, even if it's just to say, "Don't worry. I hear you."
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A Notice To My Readers
Hello everyone. This month, I will become a married man. Those of you who are married will probably understand the intense transition that comes with marriage. It only began to occur to me last week, "Everything about how I lived will have to change." I'm thrilled, seriously, but I don't want to take my new responsibilities lightly. So, at least for August, I'm going to put the Press to the side and get to know what life is like with my new wife.
In the meantime, I want to make another offer for readers to ask any questions they might have about scripture, basic Christian living, or hearing God through listening prayer. Maybe you're a relatively new reader. If that is the case, you may also consider this an opportunity to catch up on some of the older essays.
Otherwise, you can all look forward to September's discussion on prayer. Until then...
In the meantime, I want to make another offer for readers to ask any questions they might have about scripture, basic Christian living, or hearing God through listening prayer. Maybe you're a relatively new reader. If that is the case, you may also consider this an opportunity to catch up on some of the older essays.
Otherwise, you can all look forward to September's discussion on prayer. Until then...
Monday, July 26, 2010
Back To Boardgames - Why Christians need the Bible's authority
About a year ago, when I figured out I was probably more of a Calvinist than I ever wanted to admit, I wrote an essay on the Bible's authority. It would probably do for me to include this topic in the Basics Series. Instead of coming up with an entirely new analogy, though, I've decided to revise and repost the original.
My friend Joe has a sick sense of humor. He told me one day to read a particular post and the subsequent comments. This post dealt with a line in 2 Peter 2:7 calling Lot "righteous". Of course, you had the people who talked about justification versus sanctification. Others rejected the passage as "a misunderstanding", because how could God call Lot righteous when he offered his daughters to gang rape, then later got drunk and committed incest with them? Eventually, and Joe intended this, the conversation came to the authority of the Bible, its inerrancy, comparisons of Old to New Testament, and Universalism.
One man created a sub-argument about a supposed misquotation in Mark where the writer "quotes" Isaiah, but actually quotes both Malachi and Isaiah. I wonder if it would do any good to tell him that ancient Greek writing didn't have quotation marks or that they used indirect quotations. For example, if Joe tells me "Dinner is at six tonight. Come over with the guys and join us." I might tell my friends, "Joe wants us to be at his house for dinner at six." Even though I didn't directly quote Joe, I correctly communicated what he said.
For most of my life, people outside of the church have told me the Bible is just a book full of contradictions and inconsistencies. When I was seventeen, I wondered if these people were right. So I read the whole thing, looking for a contradiction or inconsistency. I think my Bible teacher knew what I was doing because he invited me to challenge the Bible's authority and inerrancy openly in class whenever I thought I had found proof. Believe me, I tried. But he always had answers that both cut through my cynicism and satisfied my questions. Soon enough, I began to ask him to explain hard passages because I wanted to know more of how the Bible truly was authoritative and without error. By the end of the school year, I knew without a shred of doubt that the Bible is God's book. To disbelieve or disobey the Bible meant I disbelieved or disobeyed God.
If any of you ever want to take a poke at me the way I did my Bible teacher all of Senior year, please feel free. I'm certain that, given time, I could find a sufficient answer for you. For now, I want to set a foundation for the Bible's authority with a few scriptures. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." This sums up the Old Testament writings and the words of Jesus. Whatever the prophets said in the Bible, God said through them. That's not to say they themselves were always infallible. Even if Moses thought the world was flat, he never said so in the Bible because God oversaw every word written in scripture and kept it truthful. Going back to 2 Peter, it seems the writer shared Joe's intentions. 2 Peter, 3:1-2 says, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." This adds the writings of the Apostles into the category of "Authoritative". In the same chapter, Peter equates Paul's writings with scripture and calls those who distort Paul's teachings "untaught and unstable". Paul refers to Luke's and Matthew's gospels as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
The whole controversy over Biblical authority and inerrancy reminds me of board game tantrums. You know what I'm talking about. We've all played Monopoly and accused the banker of cheating before flipping the whole board into the air. My favorite checkmate in chess was the one where I swept all the pieces to the floor with my spindly arm. I get the same feeling every time I hear arguments for or against the ultimate authority of anything.
While studying Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, I read, "It is one thing to affirm that the Bible claims to be the words of God. It is another thing to be convinced that those claims are true. Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God's words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us." Then he quotes 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (Grudem's translation)."
Essentially, what Grudem said was this, "If you don't believe the Bible, it's because God hasn't revealed it as truth to you." And think of this, if we claim that the Bible is our absolute standard of truth, then we can't appeal to another kind of standard to validate it. To do so would put the outside standard on par or greater than scripture. So what difference is there between us saying the Bible is true because it claims to be true and the claims of ultimate authority for an Atheist who supremely values science or historical accuracy? They think science is authoritative because it's scientifically proven. They think history is accurate because of the accuracy of historical documents. If you think about it long enough, you want to kick the game table, knock over the pieces, and shout, "No, I'm Sorry!"
The difference I can see comes from what I said long ago about Xerox copies. We are not ultimate beings. We're limited. Blaise Pascal had this realization and said that man was merely a point on a line. We can't comprehend the extremes of anything in nature, and yet those extremes exist beyond our comprehension. From there, he explains that a being must comprehend those extremes and only God is ultimate enough to do so.
So where else but the Bible could I find a standard of truth? I can't base my standard of truth at all on myself. My perception, my logic, my experience, it's all limited. And I can't base my standard on other men because I recognize their limitations as well. The Bible, with the Holy Spirit's instruction, convinces me of its own truth. I believe its truth to such lengths that I allow the words of the Bible to offend my reason and change the way I think.
Some people might think that I worship the Bible rather than God when I say these things. Let me assure you I do not. God reveals Himself to man through the Bible. God also says that He reveals Himself to man through nature. In fact He reveals Himself to us in all things. But God doesn't want us to worship nature or any other means of revelation. There can be no other gods before Him, not even His book. My point is that the Bible is a complete, though not exhaustive, way in which God revealed Himself.
Cornelius Van Til said that in order for us to truly know God, He would have to reveal Himself truly to us. If the Bible were not the absolute, authoritative, perfect standard of truth, then my understanding of God would be incomplete. No one could truly know God. If the Bible contained any falsehood, the pluralist claim of all religions worshiping the same god might have some merit. God would be subjective to our perception. So if you claim to be a Christian, you absolutely must recognize the authority of the Bible.
Have you thrown the game table yet? I know I've seen and thrown enough board game tantrums to wonder if I should even bother playing in the first place. But it wouldn't do any good if I surrendered by saying, "It's a Christian thing, you wouldn't understand," or, "Just take a leap of faith," or, "We don't ask those questions." The Bible I claim to believe makes it clear I should still work to understand my faith and reason with people. But 1 Corinthians 2:14, as well as other verses, tell me I don't need to convince anyone. I can leave that up to the Holy Spirit and find comfort in knowing He'll do a much better job.
My friend Joe has a sick sense of humor. He told me one day to read a particular post and the subsequent comments. This post dealt with a line in 2 Peter 2:7 calling Lot "righteous". Of course, you had the people who talked about justification versus sanctification. Others rejected the passage as "a misunderstanding", because how could God call Lot righteous when he offered his daughters to gang rape, then later got drunk and committed incest with them? Eventually, and Joe intended this, the conversation came to the authority of the Bible, its inerrancy, comparisons of Old to New Testament, and Universalism.
One man created a sub-argument about a supposed misquotation in Mark where the writer "quotes" Isaiah, but actually quotes both Malachi and Isaiah. I wonder if it would do any good to tell him that ancient Greek writing didn't have quotation marks or that they used indirect quotations. For example, if Joe tells me "Dinner is at six tonight. Come over with the guys and join us." I might tell my friends, "Joe wants us to be at his house for dinner at six." Even though I didn't directly quote Joe, I correctly communicated what he said.
For most of my life, people outside of the church have told me the Bible is just a book full of contradictions and inconsistencies. When I was seventeen, I wondered if these people were right. So I read the whole thing, looking for a contradiction or inconsistency. I think my Bible teacher knew what I was doing because he invited me to challenge the Bible's authority and inerrancy openly in class whenever I thought I had found proof. Believe me, I tried. But he always had answers that both cut through my cynicism and satisfied my questions. Soon enough, I began to ask him to explain hard passages because I wanted to know more of how the Bible truly was authoritative and without error. By the end of the school year, I knew without a shred of doubt that the Bible is God's book. To disbelieve or disobey the Bible meant I disbelieved or disobeyed God.
If any of you ever want to take a poke at me the way I did my Bible teacher all of Senior year, please feel free. I'm certain that, given time, I could find a sufficient answer for you. For now, I want to set a foundation for the Bible's authority with a few scriptures. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." This sums up the Old Testament writings and the words of Jesus. Whatever the prophets said in the Bible, God said through them. That's not to say they themselves were always infallible. Even if Moses thought the world was flat, he never said so in the Bible because God oversaw every word written in scripture and kept it truthful. Going back to 2 Peter, it seems the writer shared Joe's intentions. 2 Peter, 3:1-2 says, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." This adds the writings of the Apostles into the category of "Authoritative". In the same chapter, Peter equates Paul's writings with scripture and calls those who distort Paul's teachings "untaught and unstable". Paul refers to Luke's and Matthew's gospels as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
The whole controversy over Biblical authority and inerrancy reminds me of board game tantrums. You know what I'm talking about. We've all played Monopoly and accused the banker of cheating before flipping the whole board into the air. My favorite checkmate in chess was the one where I swept all the pieces to the floor with my spindly arm. I get the same feeling every time I hear arguments for or against the ultimate authority of anything.
While studying Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, I read, "It is one thing to affirm that the Bible claims to be the words of God. It is another thing to be convinced that those claims are true. Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God's words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us." Then he quotes 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (Grudem's translation)."
Essentially, what Grudem said was this, "If you don't believe the Bible, it's because God hasn't revealed it as truth to you." And think of this, if we claim that the Bible is our absolute standard of truth, then we can't appeal to another kind of standard to validate it. To do so would put the outside standard on par or greater than scripture. So what difference is there between us saying the Bible is true because it claims to be true and the claims of ultimate authority for an Atheist who supremely values science or historical accuracy? They think science is authoritative because it's scientifically proven. They think history is accurate because of the accuracy of historical documents. If you think about it long enough, you want to kick the game table, knock over the pieces, and shout, "No, I'm Sorry!"
The difference I can see comes from what I said long ago about Xerox copies. We are not ultimate beings. We're limited. Blaise Pascal had this realization and said that man was merely a point on a line. We can't comprehend the extremes of anything in nature, and yet those extremes exist beyond our comprehension. From there, he explains that a being must comprehend those extremes and only God is ultimate enough to do so.
So where else but the Bible could I find a standard of truth? I can't base my standard of truth at all on myself. My perception, my logic, my experience, it's all limited. And I can't base my standard on other men because I recognize their limitations as well. The Bible, with the Holy Spirit's instruction, convinces me of its own truth. I believe its truth to such lengths that I allow the words of the Bible to offend my reason and change the way I think.
Some people might think that I worship the Bible rather than God when I say these things. Let me assure you I do not. God reveals Himself to man through the Bible. God also says that He reveals Himself to man through nature. In fact He reveals Himself to us in all things. But God doesn't want us to worship nature or any other means of revelation. There can be no other gods before Him, not even His book. My point is that the Bible is a complete, though not exhaustive, way in which God revealed Himself.
Cornelius Van Til said that in order for us to truly know God, He would have to reveal Himself truly to us. If the Bible were not the absolute, authoritative, perfect standard of truth, then my understanding of God would be incomplete. No one could truly know God. If the Bible contained any falsehood, the pluralist claim of all religions worshiping the same god might have some merit. God would be subjective to our perception. So if you claim to be a Christian, you absolutely must recognize the authority of the Bible.
Have you thrown the game table yet? I know I've seen and thrown enough board game tantrums to wonder if I should even bother playing in the first place. But it wouldn't do any good if I surrendered by saying, "It's a Christian thing, you wouldn't understand," or, "Just take a leap of faith," or, "We don't ask those questions." The Bible I claim to believe makes it clear I should still work to understand my faith and reason with people. But 1 Corinthians 2:14, as well as other verses, tell me I don't need to convince anyone. I can leave that up to the Holy Spirit and find comfort in knowing He'll do a much better job.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Comfort Of A Narrow Path - Why Christians need the Bible
Last month, I wrote about the need for people to understand the basics of Christianity. Since every post regarding this topic will have its foundation in the Bible, I wanted to first write about the Bible itself.
In Romans 10:2, the apostle Paul teaches about people having genuine zeal for God, but zeal "not based on correct understanding". Verse 3 says, "for, since they are unaware of God's way of making people righteous and instead seek to set up their own (way of making people righteous), they have not submitted themselves to God's way of making people righteous." They didn't correctly understand God's message of salvation so they created their own. Elsewhere in the Bible, you can read about this man-made version of salvation. It based itself on the merit of good deeds (Matthew 23:2-4, Galatians 2:16), ethnicity (Luke 3:8, 1 Timothy 1:3-4), and painful surgery (Galatians 5:6-12).
Paul goes on to use several Old Testament references explaining Jesus as the only source of salvation, ending with a quote from the prophet Joel in verse 13, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered." Starting in the next verse, Paul gives us a strong argument for the need of the Bible in understanding the truth of God and the salvation He offers. "But how can they call on someone if they haven't trusted Him? And how can they trust in someone if they haven't heard about Him? And how can they hear about someone if no one is proclaiming Him? And how can people proclaim Him unless God sends them? - as the scriptures put it, 'How beautiful are the feet of those announcing good news about good things!'"
God told specific men to proclaim the truth of His words, to write them down. These writings are the Bible. The Bible truthfully and sufficiently tells us about who God is, what Jesus has done, and how we can know Him with the help of the Holy Spirit. If a person reads the Bible and comes to believe its words are true, he can put his trust in Jesus and receive salvation. Romans 10:17 sums it up this way, "So trust comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through a word proclaimed about the Messiah."
This is a very controversial and emotional topic for people. I think it's probable every person who reads the Bible has or will come across a passage offending their reason or emotion. The idea of scripture as the unchanging standard of truth can cause panic. People like flexibility. But when people resist the teachings of the Bible and come up with a different explanation of God or how He wants us to live, they almost always deviate toward some form of humanism, nihilism, pluralism, or universalism. These appeal to human reason or emotion and make them the final authority. For example, the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to find forgiveness for sin and spend eternity with God in Heaven. Jesus said in John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He (the Son of God, the Messiah), you will die in your sins." But then, some might say, what about people who will never have a chance to hear about Jesus? Does that mean they'll go to Hell, even if they never had a chance for salvation? According to the Bible, even they have no excuse for their sin and face an eternity in Hell (Romans 1:20).
Most objections to scripture tend to occur because of this sort of specificity, not because of vague generalities. Time and culture don't determine its truth. Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Jesus knew some would struggle with this when He taught in Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." One of my favorite interpretations of this passage comes from Dennis and Rita Bennett's book, The Holy Spirit and You. Bennett compares the narrow way to the flight path of an airplane traveling from Los Angeles to Honolulu. The plane must follow a specific route to make its destination, otherwise it will end up somewhere way off course near Fiji. If the pilot follows the correct directions given him, he can fly without fear of losing his way.
Talking to people in Nashville, one of the country's most heavily-churched cities, I'm amazed at all the pilots thinking they can travel north to go west. If they're really nerdy, they might argue, "It's like Star Wars when Luke flies his X-wing into the Death Star trench. I'm just letting the Force guide my hand. It works so much better than the navigation device." Or, if they're less nerdy, they might say, "I'm more spiritual than religious."
Okay, I get it. The stiff and hypocritical church pissed me off enough to say the same thing a few times when I was younger. I talk to people all the time about how they need to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit for guidance while they pray. Until recently, I didn't stop to think about how many people assume I'm talking about guidance apart from the Bible. Let me make this clear: the Holy Spirit always agrees with the Bible. Yes, you might hear something regarding a personal situation or an edifying word for the church meeting you attend. That doesn't mean the prophetic word can defy or contradict scripture. Paul says just as much in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38. "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is endowed with the Spirit, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is a command of the Lord. But if someone doesn't recognize this, then let him remain unrecognized."
In the next post, I'll discuss more on the Bible's authority and inerrancy. For now, I want you to think about man's need for the Bible. I hope with this post you will begin to think of it more than a positive moral influence. I want you to see it as a detailed guide, vital to your life and relationship with God. Without it, every decision made will come from man's own fallen reason or fickle emotion. Man needs an authoritative, objective truth and I believe God revealed it in the Bible.
In Romans 10:2, the apostle Paul teaches about people having genuine zeal for God, but zeal "not based on correct understanding". Verse 3 says, "for, since they are unaware of God's way of making people righteous and instead seek to set up their own (way of making people righteous), they have not submitted themselves to God's way of making people righteous." They didn't correctly understand God's message of salvation so they created their own. Elsewhere in the Bible, you can read about this man-made version of salvation. It based itself on the merit of good deeds (Matthew 23:2-4, Galatians 2:16), ethnicity (Luke 3:8, 1 Timothy 1:3-4), and painful surgery (Galatians 5:6-12).
Paul goes on to use several Old Testament references explaining Jesus as the only source of salvation, ending with a quote from the prophet Joel in verse 13, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered." Starting in the next verse, Paul gives us a strong argument for the need of the Bible in understanding the truth of God and the salvation He offers. "But how can they call on someone if they haven't trusted Him? And how can they trust in someone if they haven't heard about Him? And how can they hear about someone if no one is proclaiming Him? And how can people proclaim Him unless God sends them? - as the scriptures put it, 'How beautiful are the feet of those announcing good news about good things!'"
God told specific men to proclaim the truth of His words, to write them down. These writings are the Bible. The Bible truthfully and sufficiently tells us about who God is, what Jesus has done, and how we can know Him with the help of the Holy Spirit. If a person reads the Bible and comes to believe its words are true, he can put his trust in Jesus and receive salvation. Romans 10:17 sums it up this way, "So trust comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through a word proclaimed about the Messiah."
This is a very controversial and emotional topic for people. I think it's probable every person who reads the Bible has or will come across a passage offending their reason or emotion. The idea of scripture as the unchanging standard of truth can cause panic. People like flexibility. But when people resist the teachings of the Bible and come up with a different explanation of God or how He wants us to live, they almost always deviate toward some form of humanism, nihilism, pluralism, or universalism. These appeal to human reason or emotion and make them the final authority. For example, the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to find forgiveness for sin and spend eternity with God in Heaven. Jesus said in John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He (the Son of God, the Messiah), you will die in your sins." But then, some might say, what about people who will never have a chance to hear about Jesus? Does that mean they'll go to Hell, even if they never had a chance for salvation? According to the Bible, even they have no excuse for their sin and face an eternity in Hell (Romans 1:20).
Most objections to scripture tend to occur because of this sort of specificity, not because of vague generalities. Time and culture don't determine its truth. Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Jesus knew some would struggle with this when He taught in Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." One of my favorite interpretations of this passage comes from Dennis and Rita Bennett's book, The Holy Spirit and You. Bennett compares the narrow way to the flight path of an airplane traveling from Los Angeles to Honolulu. The plane must follow a specific route to make its destination, otherwise it will end up somewhere way off course near Fiji. If the pilot follows the correct directions given him, he can fly without fear of losing his way.
Talking to people in Nashville, one of the country's most heavily-churched cities, I'm amazed at all the pilots thinking they can travel north to go west. If they're really nerdy, they might argue, "It's like Star Wars when Luke flies his X-wing into the Death Star trench. I'm just letting the Force guide my hand. It works so much better than the navigation device." Or, if they're less nerdy, they might say, "I'm more spiritual than religious."
Okay, I get it. The stiff and hypocritical church pissed me off enough to say the same thing a few times when I was younger. I talk to people all the time about how they need to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit for guidance while they pray. Until recently, I didn't stop to think about how many people assume I'm talking about guidance apart from the Bible. Let me make this clear: the Holy Spirit always agrees with the Bible. Yes, you might hear something regarding a personal situation or an edifying word for the church meeting you attend. That doesn't mean the prophetic word can defy or contradict scripture. Paul says just as much in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38. "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is endowed with the Spirit, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is a command of the Lord. But if someone doesn't recognize this, then let him remain unrecognized."
In the next post, I'll discuss more on the Bible's authority and inerrancy. For now, I want you to think about man's need for the Bible. I hope with this post you will begin to think of it more than a positive moral influence. I want you to see it as a detailed guide, vital to your life and relationship with God. Without it, every decision made will come from man's own fallen reason or fickle emotion. Man needs an authoritative, objective truth and I believe God revealed it in the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
