President Obama has decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That act “bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages from other states.” But Attorney General Eric Holder claims the law is unconstitutional so the President will no longer impose it. But is that really the issue? Is DOMA unconstitutional? And, not that the constitutionality of a law is unimportant, isn’t the President’s obligation to execute law even more important? These two points frame what follows.
Is DOMA unconstitutional? Mr. Holder has in this case ‘pled the fifth.’ You remember the rule about self-incrimination, pleading the fifth? How does that relate to marriage? Read the amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Marriage by Holder’s judgment is wrapped up in the phrase ‘due process of law.’ What’s that got to do with marriage? Notice the prior list of 5 actions that cannot be taken without due process of law. Nothing about marriage; all about arrest and trial. Yet Holder says the phrase applies to DOMA. Let me try to explain why.
The reasoning actually begins with the 14th Amendment. That contains what is called equal protection of the laws. It forbids states from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That means that everyone will be treated equally in regard to the enforcement of any given law. This was written to insure that blacks would not be discriminated against after the Civil War. Of course equal protection of law has a universal application; everyone, not just blacks, is guaranteed the same security. But the 14th amendment cannot be used to prove DOMA unconstitutional. Its universe is limited to the states individually. It does not apply to Federal laws. Enter Earl Warren.
In 1954 the Supreme Court argued that if the states could not deny equal protection of the laws than it would be absurd for Congress to have that right. "[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive,” Chief Justice Warren. In other words, due process of law and equal protection of the laws are now essentially on the same plane. Back to Mr. Holder.
The Attorney General knows that the 14th Amendment has application to the states only (I give him credit for that) so he won’t use the clearest statement of equal protection. Since it is the 5th Amendment that applies to Congress he falls back on Warren’s interpretation- DOMA does not provide equal protection of the laws because it discriminates against gays.
It is a long stretch to find equal protection in due process even if a Supreme Court justice is the stretcher. Holder’s interpretation does not make DOMA unconstitutional. Yet I would argue that DOMA is unconstitutional on other grounds. Simply put, the Constitution of these United States has no jurisdiction over marriage. Marriage is not in the realm of the government that the Constitution creates. Some may cite the 10th amendment as a basis for individual states to rule on marriage. But there is no basis for these kinds of laws. Marriage is God’s design.
God has once and for all defined marriage. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Marriage is only marriage when it is between man and woman. No governmental permissions or interdictions will ever change this God-ordained union.
But there is another question to be answered. More important than the first. The President says he will not enforce DOMA. Is he allowed to do that? Absolutely not! The President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t matter whether he agrees with them or not. Whether he wants to or not. How many of his henchmen are affected. If he believes a law is unconstitutional he must wait for a Supreme Court ruling. He may not decide to simply abandon one.
Regardless of the constitutionality of DOMA President Obama is duty bound to execute it, like it or not. He violates his oath and breaks his promise to Americans whenever he decides willy-nilly which laws he will enforce.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Faith of President Obama
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the faith of President Obama. He began the conversation himself in an interview with Rick Warren during the presidential campaign in August of 2008.
Warren asked what it meant to trust in Christ. Mr. Obama responded.
“As a starting point, it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away.”
That has a ring of confidence and sincerity to it. And yet 2 years down the road his faith is still questioned. So much so that at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, he felt compelled to defend his beliefs. "My Christian faith has been a sustaining force for me over the years, all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned."
Some in the media think that the Republicans are responsible for those increased questions.
For example, George Stephanopoulos recently grilled Michelle Bachman.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, a sizable number of GOP primary voters are questioning President Obama's faith and citizenship. Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?
BACHMANN: Well, that isn't for me to state. That's for the President to state. And I think that-
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?
BACHMANN: When the President makes his statements, I think they need to stand for their own.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, he has said it very clear. I'm just asking if you believe it? BACHMANN: Well, I think we should take the President at his word.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you can't say that- you can't just sit there and declare the President's a citizen and he is a Christian?
Senator Mitch McConnell caught some flack last August with these words: "The
president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute." What is in dispute? We do know the President says he is a Christian. Is that all that is indisputable?
Finally, last Sunday on Meet the Press, John Boehner defended his position on the faith of Obama.
“The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word." He later called those "the facts" of Obama's background. (David) Gregory asked, "But that kind of ignorance, about whether he's a Muslim, doesn't concern you?" "The American people have the right to think what they want to think," Boehner replied. "I can't -- it's not my job to tell them."
Is there anyone whose job it is to tell us? Wouldn’t it help us all if someone went beyond rhetoric and gave a visual definition of a Christian? Of course, someone did. His name is John and he was one of the first men to be called a Christian. (New Testament book of Acts. 11:26) And being among the initial followers of Christ he would certainly know what a Christian looks like.
In fact, he wrote a letter that contains certain reliable proofs of ‘Christian’ faith. When someone is born of God, born again, John says, that person exhibits distinct behaviors. Here are 3 of these character traits.
1. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” 1John 3:9. This does not mean that Christians never sin. It means that a true Christian does not continue living just like a sinner, i.e. with all the bad habits associated with sin: greed, dishonesty, arrogance, lust, selfishness, etc.
2. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” 1John 4:7. A true Christian loves other Christians. This kind of love moves Christians toward one another. Christians want to be together. That is why they attend church regularly, for example. And pray for one another. And encourage one another. And are hospitable to one another.
3. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.” 1John 5:1. A true Christian believes that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the only anointed one. That Jesus is the only divine representative from God. A true Christian does not accept the premise that there are many ways to God. He knows that Jesus Christ is the only way.
Based on these physical evidences of true Christianity, are anyone’s words proof enough?
Warren asked what it meant to trust in Christ. Mr. Obama responded.
“As a starting point, it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away.”
That has a ring of confidence and sincerity to it. And yet 2 years down the road his faith is still questioned. So much so that at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, he felt compelled to defend his beliefs. "My Christian faith has been a sustaining force for me over the years, all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned."
Some in the media think that the Republicans are responsible for those increased questions.
For example, George Stephanopoulos recently grilled Michelle Bachman.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, a sizable number of GOP primary voters are questioning President Obama's faith and citizenship. Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?
BACHMANN: Well, that isn't for me to state. That's for the President to state. And I think that-
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?
BACHMANN: When the President makes his statements, I think they need to stand for their own.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, he has said it very clear. I'm just asking if you believe it? BACHMANN: Well, I think we should take the President at his word.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you can't say that- you can't just sit there and declare the President's a citizen and he is a Christian?
Senator Mitch McConnell caught some flack last August with these words: "The
president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute." What is in dispute? We do know the President says he is a Christian. Is that all that is indisputable?
Finally, last Sunday on Meet the Press, John Boehner defended his position on the faith of Obama.
“The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word." He later called those "the facts" of Obama's background. (David) Gregory asked, "But that kind of ignorance, about whether he's a Muslim, doesn't concern you?" "The American people have the right to think what they want to think," Boehner replied. "I can't -- it's not my job to tell them."
Is there anyone whose job it is to tell us? Wouldn’t it help us all if someone went beyond rhetoric and gave a visual definition of a Christian? Of course, someone did. His name is John and he was one of the first men to be called a Christian. (New Testament book of Acts. 11:26) And being among the initial followers of Christ he would certainly know what a Christian looks like.
In fact, he wrote a letter that contains certain reliable proofs of ‘Christian’ faith. When someone is born of God, born again, John says, that person exhibits distinct behaviors. Here are 3 of these character traits.
1. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” 1John 3:9. This does not mean that Christians never sin. It means that a true Christian does not continue living just like a sinner, i.e. with all the bad habits associated with sin: greed, dishonesty, arrogance, lust, selfishness, etc.
2. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” 1John 4:7. A true Christian loves other Christians. This kind of love moves Christians toward one another. Christians want to be together. That is why they attend church regularly, for example. And pray for one another. And encourage one another. And are hospitable to one another.
3. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.” 1John 5:1. A true Christian believes that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the only anointed one. That Jesus is the only divine representative from God. A true Christian does not accept the premise that there are many ways to God. He knows that Jesus Christ is the only way.
Based on these physical evidences of true Christianity, are anyone’s words proof enough?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Is Idol Food Idle Talk?
Pastor Mark Biltz recently warned his listeners that they could be eating food offered to idols. And they may not even know it. His concern grows from the thousands of meat production companies that specialize in Halal food.
Halal food has been presented to Allah for his blessing. In order to receive the sanction of Allah a specific prayer must be made and a specific process followed. There is no doubt that the food is purposely consecrated to the god of Islam- who is for all Jews and biblical Christians a false god. Pastor Biltz wonders if that makes those who eat Halal food, even ignorantly, partakers of idol food. It is an interesting question.
The New Testament speaks to that very issue. When the apostles and elders of the church confronted the first challenge to church unity they resolved: “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20) Gentile believers were not permitted to eat idol food. That seems clear enough. But further clarification became necessary.
In Rome and Corinth believers were troubled about the ramifications of eating idol food unknowingly. Much of the meat purchased in first century markets was cut from larger portions that had been part of pagan sacrifices. What about eating this meat?
1. There is only God and He is Lord over all. 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6
2. Yet some believers may be offended if another eats meat previously offered to an idol. 8:7-12
3. Therefore, we must avoid offending our brother. 8:13
What if we don’t know about the meat purchased?
4. Eat anything sold or offered by a neighbor without asking questions because everything is God’s. 1 Corinthians 10: 25-27. Paul says in Romans 14:14 that nothing is unclean in itself. It is a matter of one’s personal conviction.
5. Therefore, if you know that the meat was part of a pagan ritual, do not eat because it may cause an offense to one who thinks it is tainted food. 10: 28-29
Where does Halal food fit in this process?
First, we must understand that God, not Allah, is Lord over all. Nothing He created for us to use is unclean. “For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. . ." 1 Timothy 4:4
Second, it is okay to eat any food purchased by or served to us. We do not need to know its spiritual history. In fact, we are not guilty of eating idol food if we do not know it is idol food. (Principle 4 above)
Third, if we are told it is Halal and eating it will create an offense to our conscience or another believer’s conscience, we must abstain.
One final thought. Would this question be on the table if the issue was meat from India or rice from China?
Halal food has been presented to Allah for his blessing. In order to receive the sanction of Allah a specific prayer must be made and a specific process followed. There is no doubt that the food is purposely consecrated to the god of Islam- who is for all Jews and biblical Christians a false god. Pastor Biltz wonders if that makes those who eat Halal food, even ignorantly, partakers of idol food. It is an interesting question.
The New Testament speaks to that very issue. When the apostles and elders of the church confronted the first challenge to church unity they resolved: “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20) Gentile believers were not permitted to eat idol food. That seems clear enough. But further clarification became necessary.
In Rome and Corinth believers were troubled about the ramifications of eating idol food unknowingly. Much of the meat purchased in first century markets was cut from larger portions that had been part of pagan sacrifices. What about eating this meat?
1. There is only God and He is Lord over all. 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6
2. Yet some believers may be offended if another eats meat previously offered to an idol. 8:7-12
3. Therefore, we must avoid offending our brother. 8:13
What if we don’t know about the meat purchased?
4. Eat anything sold or offered by a neighbor without asking questions because everything is God’s. 1 Corinthians 10: 25-27. Paul says in Romans 14:14 that nothing is unclean in itself. It is a matter of one’s personal conviction.
5. Therefore, if you know that the meat was part of a pagan ritual, do not eat because it may cause an offense to one who thinks it is tainted food. 10: 28-29
Where does Halal food fit in this process?
First, we must understand that God, not Allah, is Lord over all. Nothing He created for us to use is unclean. “For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. . ." 1 Timothy 4:4
Second, it is okay to eat any food purchased by or served to us. We do not need to know its spiritual history. In fact, we are not guilty of eating idol food if we do not know it is idol food. (Principle 4 above)
Third, if we are told it is Halal and eating it will create an offense to our conscience or another believer’s conscience, we must abstain.
One final thought. Would this question be on the table if the issue was meat from India or rice from China?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Most Meaningful Books of 2010
Here are the ten books that most affected me in 2010. In the order in which I read them. Particularly influential were The Reason for God, Crazy Love, Respectable Sins, Hitler’s Cross, and A Call to Spiritual Reformation. I believe that every Christian leader should read Hitler’s Cross.
The Reason for God Timothy Keller
Crazy Love Francis Chan
The Gospel-Driven Life Michael Horton
Respectable Sins Jerry Bridges
A Gospel Primer Milton Vincent
There is a God Antony Flew
The Cross Centered Life C.J. Mahaney
Hitler’s Cross Irwin Lutzer
What is the Gospel? Greg Gilbert
A Call to Spiritual Reformation D.A. Carson
The Reason for God Timothy Keller
Crazy Love Francis Chan
The Gospel-Driven Life Michael Horton
Respectable Sins Jerry Bridges
A Gospel Primer Milton Vincent
There is a God Antony Flew
The Cross Centered Life C.J. Mahaney
Hitler’s Cross Irwin Lutzer
What is the Gospel? Greg Gilbert
A Call to Spiritual Reformation D.A. Carson
Saturday, May 29, 2010
A 'Lost' View of Bible Meaning
From the first episode to the last viewers were entertained and enticed by the ABC drama Lost. I only watched one season and a few shows after that so most of you know the recurring characters and multiple story lines far better than me. But I think the writers may have unintentionally defined the post-modern approach to Bible understanding.
“. . . On Lost, says co-writer Damon Lindelof, "the question has mostly been, What's going to happen next? But that question no longer exists after the series finale. And we anticipate that it will be replaced by a question along the lines of, What did they mean by that? And the question that we would throw back at the audience is, Well, what did it mean to you? Your own personal relationship with Lost actually trumps any intention that we had as storytellers.(Italics mine) And we wanted that to be the legacy of the show."
This post-modern goal of individual truth is all that exists may be excusable in a fictional story that has little bearing on real life. When it enters the church it is a tragedy. Yet this is the model of Bible interpretation in many modern congregations, encouraged by emerging shepherds. ‘Your personal relationship with the Bible actually trumps any intention the writers had.’ ‘What God meant is not as important as what the verse means to you.’ This is not the church that Jesus promised to build. In fact, a priority calling of Christ’s church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. Churches and church leaders who leave the legacy of Truth will never be lost.
“. . . On Lost, says co-writer Damon Lindelof, "the question has mostly been, What's going to happen next? But that question no longer exists after the series finale. And we anticipate that it will be replaced by a question along the lines of, What did they mean by that? And the question that we would throw back at the audience is, Well, what did it mean to you? Your own personal relationship with Lost actually trumps any intention that we had as storytellers.(Italics mine) And we wanted that to be the legacy of the show."
This post-modern goal of individual truth is all that exists may be excusable in a fictional story that has little bearing on real life. When it enters the church it is a tragedy. Yet this is the model of Bible interpretation in many modern congregations, encouraged by emerging shepherds. ‘Your personal relationship with the Bible actually trumps any intention the writers had.’ ‘What God meant is not as important as what the verse means to you.’ This is not the church that Jesus promised to build. In fact, a priority calling of Christ’s church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. Churches and church leaders who leave the legacy of Truth will never be lost.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Putting Grace Back into the Gospel
What do people actually do to get saved? That’s the question that drives this title.
There is good reason to invite people to come to Christ. One of the most comforting passages of Scripture is Jesus own request to “come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” And come we must. But what does that mean in regard to salvation?
If I raise my hand, does that save me? If I come down an aisle and kneel at an altar am I going to heaven? How about repeating a prayer? Maybe asking Jesus into my heart. Or the various outdoor events like putting a stick in the fire. Surely these are all part of the process?
Here are a couple other suggestions, a little more severe but nonetheless encouraged by some to secure salvation. In the first century circumcision was an invitation to salvation. Many today preach a gospel of penance. When you have punished yourself enough you will be delivered.
But do any of these things actually save the person who participates? I hope your answer is a resounding NO! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Salvation is through faith on the basis of grace. This type of salvation is not because of any work that anyone might do.
Most evangelical ministers and missionaries know this and believe it. That is why you will hear, have heard, various caveats in an invitation that asks for some action. “Raising your hand won’t save you.” “Walking down the aisle won’t put you in heaven.” Which begs the question, why then do some ask for these things to be done?
What is the purpose of doing anything that doesn’t save as part of the process to be saved? I have heard the suggestions. “These are outward signs that show inward belief.” “We want to know who to pray for.” My purpose is not to argue those points. Rather I would like to provoke thought and discussion about this type of invitation.
Does the Bible teach that man must do anything beyond belief to be saved? The reality is that God even gives the grace to be saved. John 1:12 claims that the authority, the right, to be born again is not at all related to man. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It is simply through belief that man is saved. And it is not man’s right to claim even that. Philippians 1:29, “For it has been granted (engraced) to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Belief is a gift. No one will be let into heaven on the basis of a raised hand, walked aisle, or burned stick. Only through belief in Christ. Specifically, that belief is that He became a substitute for you- that your sins, which would carry you into hell, were placed on Him and caused His death, so that you, through faith alone, may enter heaven. None of that requires any physical action.
Here’s the big deal. Is it possible that the past years, centuries, of asking for some sign of belief have produced confusion in the church? And resulted in a shallow lifestyle? It seems to me that two results have marked this confusion.
The first is false security. As much as one may try to explain otherwise pride is so powerful a sin that many who raise their hands do indeed believe that they had something to do with their salvation. Even the repetition of a prayer can produce a self-confident stature. That leads to the notion that since I raised my hand, etc. I am good with God. I can live any way I want. And when they do live any way they want we begin defending them. “Well, ‘Joe’ is a believer. He went forward two years ago and prayed the prayer. It’s too bad he isn’t living for Jesus.” Maybe that’s because Jesus isn’t living in him! But he thinks so; because he raised his hand and boy it felt good to get right with God.
The second potential result of ‘physical action invitations’ is false purity. It works this way. “Maybe it didn’t save me but I did do something when I got saved so I must do something(s) now to prove I am saved.” That attitude leads to legalism. And the ‘to do’ list is endless. But then we set the standard too low. God wants hearts that produce Christ like patterns. Would God rather that I not go to movies or that I live in purity that reflects His? But if I don’t go to movies but think impurely I am okay in many places because it is what I do that matters.
So do we give invitations? Absolutely. Jesus did. Paul did. (Even John Calvin did.) We all need to be challenged on issues of the heart. But we must be careful not to ask those to whom we are speaking to do anything that would foster false security or false purity. Jesus didn’t ask for raised hands. Paul didn’t ask anyone to repeat the sinner’s prayer.
Jesus did say that his sheep hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. And He gives them eternal life. Will they hear Him without an altar call? Will He know them without a raised hand? Will He give them eternal life based on belief or must His sheep prove they are sincere by doing something?
As always your comments are appreciated. Click on comment and follow the directions.
There is good reason to invite people to come to Christ. One of the most comforting passages of Scripture is Jesus own request to “come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” And come we must. But what does that mean in regard to salvation?
If I raise my hand, does that save me? If I come down an aisle and kneel at an altar am I going to heaven? How about repeating a prayer? Maybe asking Jesus into my heart. Or the various outdoor events like putting a stick in the fire. Surely these are all part of the process?
Here are a couple other suggestions, a little more severe but nonetheless encouraged by some to secure salvation. In the first century circumcision was an invitation to salvation. Many today preach a gospel of penance. When you have punished yourself enough you will be delivered.
But do any of these things actually save the person who participates? I hope your answer is a resounding NO! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Salvation is through faith on the basis of grace. This type of salvation is not because of any work that anyone might do.
Most evangelical ministers and missionaries know this and believe it. That is why you will hear, have heard, various caveats in an invitation that asks for some action. “Raising your hand won’t save you.” “Walking down the aisle won’t put you in heaven.” Which begs the question, why then do some ask for these things to be done?
What is the purpose of doing anything that doesn’t save as part of the process to be saved? I have heard the suggestions. “These are outward signs that show inward belief.” “We want to know who to pray for.” My purpose is not to argue those points. Rather I would like to provoke thought and discussion about this type of invitation.
Does the Bible teach that man must do anything beyond belief to be saved? The reality is that God even gives the grace to be saved. John 1:12 claims that the authority, the right, to be born again is not at all related to man. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It is simply through belief that man is saved. And it is not man’s right to claim even that. Philippians 1:29, “For it has been granted (engraced) to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Belief is a gift. No one will be let into heaven on the basis of a raised hand, walked aisle, or burned stick. Only through belief in Christ. Specifically, that belief is that He became a substitute for you- that your sins, which would carry you into hell, were placed on Him and caused His death, so that you, through faith alone, may enter heaven. None of that requires any physical action.
Here’s the big deal. Is it possible that the past years, centuries, of asking for some sign of belief have produced confusion in the church? And resulted in a shallow lifestyle? It seems to me that two results have marked this confusion.
The first is false security. As much as one may try to explain otherwise pride is so powerful a sin that many who raise their hands do indeed believe that they had something to do with their salvation. Even the repetition of a prayer can produce a self-confident stature. That leads to the notion that since I raised my hand, etc. I am good with God. I can live any way I want. And when they do live any way they want we begin defending them. “Well, ‘Joe’ is a believer. He went forward two years ago and prayed the prayer. It’s too bad he isn’t living for Jesus.” Maybe that’s because Jesus isn’t living in him! But he thinks so; because he raised his hand and boy it felt good to get right with God.
The second potential result of ‘physical action invitations’ is false purity. It works this way. “Maybe it didn’t save me but I did do something when I got saved so I must do something(s) now to prove I am saved.” That attitude leads to legalism. And the ‘to do’ list is endless. But then we set the standard too low. God wants hearts that produce Christ like patterns. Would God rather that I not go to movies or that I live in purity that reflects His? But if I don’t go to movies but think impurely I am okay in many places because it is what I do that matters.
So do we give invitations? Absolutely. Jesus did. Paul did. (Even John Calvin did.) We all need to be challenged on issues of the heart. But we must be careful not to ask those to whom we are speaking to do anything that would foster false security or false purity. Jesus didn’t ask for raised hands. Paul didn’t ask anyone to repeat the sinner’s prayer.
Jesus did say that his sheep hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. And He gives them eternal life. Will they hear Him without an altar call? Will He know them without a raised hand? Will He give them eternal life based on belief or must His sheep prove they are sincere by doing something?
As always your comments are appreciated. Click on comment and follow the directions.
Friday, March 5, 2010
What Does God Require for Forgiveness?
The Bible has a consistent message about forgiveness. Psalm 130:4 says that with God is forgiveness. It is part of His nature. The Gospel of Luke ends with this promise; “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his (Jesus) name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Act 5:31 “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Act 10:43 “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Act 13:38 “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.”
The result of belief in Jesus is forgiveness of sins. That is transparently clear. Is there some condition attached to that forgiveness? Are some sins only forgiven after specific repentance? Will I go through life having never been forgiven for sins I have never confessed? Apparently some Bible teachers and writers think so. Here’s why I say that.
Ephesians 4:32 states this, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. “ The example of how we are to forgive is the one set by Christ. Forgive one another, a vitally important point here, as Christ forgave us. When we forgive as Christ forgave we have it right. If Christ attached conditions to his forgiveness of me than so must I in regard to my fellow believers. And if I attach conditions to my forgiveness of fellow believers than I must be able to demonstrate that God’s forgiveness of me is conditional. Unless I do not want to forgive as Christ forgave.
How then are we to understand these two verses? First from the first chapter of Ephesians, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” Notice the definite condition. We have forgiveness. Right now, present tense. In the next verse it says that Christ lavished these things upon us. He smothered us with redemption and forgiveness. He heaped them on us. Colossians 1 has a similar proof. “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” How did Christ forgive us? With strings attached? Or do we right now live in the continuous blessing of forgiveness? Yes, there is one condition- belief. “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” But that closes the contract, ends the pursuit. We can never be more or less forgiven by God than we were the moment He brought us to faith. His manner of forgiveness is to be our example. And He does not wait for our repentance or confession. He has already forgiven us of all our sins.
Yet there are some who teach that our forgiveness of another believer is based on his repentance. If he does not repent, then we must not forgive. That idea is promoted chiefly from a story Jesus told His disciples in Luke 17. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
Two points stand out in this illustration. First of all it has a specific application. If your brother sins and you rebuke him and he repents, then you must forgive. That is the specific order here-sin, rebuke, repent, forgive. But the general principle is still Ephesians 4:32- forgive one another as you have been forgiven.
The main point of Jesus lesson is the second point of importance. Jesus is not offering a lesson on forgiveness here. He is commanding care in the personal life of the disciples. The emphasis is not on forgiveness but on confrontation. He is challenging His men to keep their eyes on each other, to watch out for themselves. If your brother sins- rebuke him. And every time he sins, rebuke him. The major concern is not about forgiveness but about personal failures that may need forgiveness. The key to that interpretation is in verse 1. “And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Verse 2 highlights the dangers of offending a little one. With that in mind, Jesus warns to watch out for each other so that if sin does occur you can challenge one another and make short account of it. Is rebuke, repent, forgive the pattern for all interpersonal forgiveness? Or rather a specific application of the general principle established by Ephesians 4:32?
One more thing. What happens when a rebuked brother does not repent? Is he not to be forgiven? Jesus does not say that. There is no ‘if he does not repent do not forgive.’ It is not wrong to forgive without repentance. This lends additional support to the view that Jesus main point was to encourage accountability among His followers.
When we forgive others as Christ forgave us will we choose the overarching, comprehensive forgiveness He bestows or take a narrow approach that denies forgiveness unless there is repentance? And by the way, 1 John 1:9 assures us that forgiveness of all our sins has already taken place before confession. Here is what it says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
We forgive one another as Christ forgave us when we forgive one another from the heart with no conditions, no strings attached.
The result of belief in Jesus is forgiveness of sins. That is transparently clear. Is there some condition attached to that forgiveness? Are some sins only forgiven after specific repentance? Will I go through life having never been forgiven for sins I have never confessed? Apparently some Bible teachers and writers think so. Here’s why I say that.
Ephesians 4:32 states this, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. “ The example of how we are to forgive is the one set by Christ. Forgive one another, a vitally important point here, as Christ forgave us. When we forgive as Christ forgave we have it right. If Christ attached conditions to his forgiveness of me than so must I in regard to my fellow believers. And if I attach conditions to my forgiveness of fellow believers than I must be able to demonstrate that God’s forgiveness of me is conditional. Unless I do not want to forgive as Christ forgave.
How then are we to understand these two verses? First from the first chapter of Ephesians, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” Notice the definite condition. We have forgiveness. Right now, present tense. In the next verse it says that Christ lavished these things upon us. He smothered us with redemption and forgiveness. He heaped them on us. Colossians 1 has a similar proof. “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” How did Christ forgive us? With strings attached? Or do we right now live in the continuous blessing of forgiveness? Yes, there is one condition- belief. “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” But that closes the contract, ends the pursuit. We can never be more or less forgiven by God than we were the moment He brought us to faith. His manner of forgiveness is to be our example. And He does not wait for our repentance or confession. He has already forgiven us of all our sins.
Yet there are some who teach that our forgiveness of another believer is based on his repentance. If he does not repent, then we must not forgive. That idea is promoted chiefly from a story Jesus told His disciples in Luke 17. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
Two points stand out in this illustration. First of all it has a specific application. If your brother sins and you rebuke him and he repents, then you must forgive. That is the specific order here-sin, rebuke, repent, forgive. But the general principle is still Ephesians 4:32- forgive one another as you have been forgiven.
The main point of Jesus lesson is the second point of importance. Jesus is not offering a lesson on forgiveness here. He is commanding care in the personal life of the disciples. The emphasis is not on forgiveness but on confrontation. He is challenging His men to keep their eyes on each other, to watch out for themselves. If your brother sins- rebuke him. And every time he sins, rebuke him. The major concern is not about forgiveness but about personal failures that may need forgiveness. The key to that interpretation is in verse 1. “And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Verse 2 highlights the dangers of offending a little one. With that in mind, Jesus warns to watch out for each other so that if sin does occur you can challenge one another and make short account of it. Is rebuke, repent, forgive the pattern for all interpersonal forgiveness? Or rather a specific application of the general principle established by Ephesians 4:32?
One more thing. What happens when a rebuked brother does not repent? Is he not to be forgiven? Jesus does not say that. There is no ‘if he does not repent do not forgive.’ It is not wrong to forgive without repentance. This lends additional support to the view that Jesus main point was to encourage accountability among His followers.
When we forgive others as Christ forgave us will we choose the overarching, comprehensive forgiveness He bestows or take a narrow approach that denies forgiveness unless there is repentance? And by the way, 1 John 1:9 assures us that forgiveness of all our sins has already taken place before confession. Here is what it says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
We forgive one another as Christ forgave us when we forgive one another from the heart with no conditions, no strings attached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)