I know that not everyone will recognize this as a Beatles song, but for those of my generation it is a classic. Of course, I am not posting about the Beatles, but about the Bible. The book of Jude, not the song.
This week I am teaching the book of Jude, one of the shortest in the Bible, in my Sunday School class. I have never heard anyone say that Jude was their favorite book and it is rarely quoted. The first to quote from it seems to be Peter who used it in 2 Peter, which itself is a short and not-so-popular book. Nevertheless, it is the Word of God and we must not ignore its teaching.
Jude warns us against false teachers, pronouncing judgment on them and urging the church to contend with them. But the false teaching that Jude is condemning is not some heresy about the person or work of Christ. It is about the behavior of the false teachers. They are teaching and practicing immorality and using the grace of God as an excuse. They "turn the grace of God into licentiousness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice the double use of "Lord" for both the Father and the Son. The fact that He is Lord means that we must do as He commands, and He commands that we avoid immorality. To commit immorality or to teach that it is okay is to deny His Lordship.
We may understand this but the point I wish to make is that Jude has a reaction to it that we might be surprised at. So let's ask Jude a few questions.
Questioner: Hey, Jude. Why do you tell us to contend for the faith? Doesn't Jesus call us to unity? Don't those who disagree with us just read the Bible differently? Aren't you being divisive?
Jude: I wrote about our common salvation that all true believers in Christ possess. There is to be unity among those of the one true faith. We are not called to unify with those who deny the faith by their immoral behavior. We must contend with those in the church who are denying Christ by teaching immorality. It is not a matter of a difference of opinion; it is a matter of affirming the essentials of the faith. As for divisions, they are caused by the error of the false teachers, not by those who call them out on it.
Questioner: Hey, Jude. Didn't the apostle Paul preach that we are saved by grace and not by works?
Jude: Paul did not teach grace as a covering for sin as some do today. We are saved to be free from sin not saved so that we can sin freely. Paul taught, "grace teaches us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present age." (Titus 2:12)
Questioner: Hey, Jude. Why are you so harsh in your condemnations? Didn't Jesus tell us, "judge not that you be not judged"?
Jude: You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was my older brother. I think I know Him better than you, but if you do not take my word for it, see what Jesus taught about sin and hell. "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable that your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell." Yes, he is using a bit of hyperbole but that hyperbole regards the cutting off of ones own hand and not the hell part. Your hand never causes you to sin, but the impulse behind the sinning hand is what needs to be cut off. Jesus was not being "judgmental" when He told the truth. Truth spoken in love may seem hard. God disciplines those whom He loves.
Questioner: Hey, Jude. Have you ever considered that in your day God may have told an unenlightened and primitive people not to do certain things because they were just not sophisticated enough to handle them, but now the Spirit is leading us into a new progressive era? After all, it was only in the nineteenth century that Christians gave up their slaves, often reluctantly (to say the least).
Jude: The false teachers of the first century thought they were enlightened, too. They were, as Paul said, "wise in their own eyes". But they not only lack wisdom, they do not have the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not leading them into some new freedom or so-called 'rights'. Evil spirits are leading them into moral apostasy and error.
Questioner: Hey, Jude. Are you using fear to keep people from listening to other points of view? Should we not be motivated by love and not fear? Don't fear and hate go together?
Jude: Some are saved by mercy and others by fear. This is a good fear, the fear of the Lord. Proverbs says that the fear of the Lord is to hate evil. Hating evil is a good thing. We are not trying to frighten people to submit to us. We are warning them about the real dangers of immorality and false teaching. The fate of the fallen angels and Sodom are good examples of this.
Questioner: Hey, Jude. In the UMC, some have gone ahead and blessed same sex marriage ceremonies because they believe, despite the book of Discipline, that what they are doing is right. How do you respond to those who are just obeying their own consciences?
Jude: I would say that their very consciences have been corrupted. Those who do not submit to authority have a wrong spirit. If they do not feel right about the authority then they should have the authenticity to leave the church and start their own religion or something. Remember how Korah rebelled against Moses saying that they were all God's people and that Moses had no right to rule over them. How did that work out for Korah?
Questioner: Hey, Jude. What advice do you have for the true church?
Jude: Build yourself up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Christianity and Science and Fiction
It does not bother me a bit that Christians have differing views on creation. I know Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth (Gap Theory) Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, and Theistic Evolutionists. All of them deserve a fair hearing and rather than fuss with each other, they ought to seriously consider each others claims. Most of all, if we examine each of their arguments they have interesting things to say.
But that is not what this post is about. I want to say, first of all, I am not going to pick on theistic evolutionists today, but rather criticize what some them have said about related matters. It seems that, for some of them, their scientific views are determining, to a large degree, their doctrine.
I responded to a post on the Jesus Creed blog about Adam and Eve as "special creations". It may now be common terminology, but not too long ago it was taken for granted that Adam and Eve were historical figures, created from dust and a rib, falling into sin, bringing a flood of corruption and death into the world. And, of course, they are the parents of all mankind.
Now we are told that the hypothesis of evolution will not allow us to be descended from a single set of humans. We would have to come out of a large set of prehuman apelike creatures. (I am truly trying to not sound mocking as I write this.) Hence, the discussion on the blog has been about whether or not Adam was a historical figure or a fictional one made up to teach a spiritual truth.
I asserted that Adam was indeed a historical figure and that any other view was unbiblical. You might imagine that I got an immediate response. I did. In fact, both Scot McKnight and RJS who wrote the piece had objections to what I said. Scot pointed out that the Bible contains both history and fiction (parables, etc) that teach spiritual truth. RJS said that we need to focus on the fact that the Big Story of the Bible is not about Adam but about Jesus.
I simply pointed out the fact that the Bible does not treat the story of Adam as fiction, but is part of the historical narrative of Genesis. There is an introduction (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) followed by ten narrative sections beginning with the story of Adam and Eve. They insist on treating the first eleven chapters of Genesis as fiction and the rest as history. Why? Each of these sections begins similarly ("These are the generations of ...") followed by historical narrative. Same genre.
I noted as well that Paul treated Adam as a historical figure as does Luke. Luke shows that Jesus is a descendant of Adam! Jesus, while not mentioning Adam, does mention his son Abel. He said that His generation would be held liable for the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Jesus seems to think that Abel was a real, not fictional, person. The author of Hebrews used Abel as an example of faith. It is clear that Luke, Paul, the author of Hebrews and Jesus all thought of these OT characters as real historical people. That does not matter to some who put science above the Bible. One even said that he did not think that Gen 2-3 was about Adam. If that is not a revealing statement, I don't know what is.
Here is what I think is even worse than saying that Jesus did not know that Abel was not a historical person (or that if He did He indicated otherwise). They think that there was not a Fall of Man at all. They think that God created us as we are today - sinful creatures destined to die. Sin is built into us by God. Why would they say such a thing? Because their scientific idea tells them that it could be no other way. Death, as they say, is simply a part of life and the way that God created us. It is not the result of sin.
So there goes the doctrine of original sin right out the window. It's not because they have carefully examined the Bible and found that it teaches otherwise. No, it's because their scientific belief (that's what it really is) tells them what they must believe.
They now have no desire to reconcile apparent contradictions in the Bible. To them the historical portions of Scripture are unreliable. They act as if they are the first to notice differences in the gospels. It is now easy for them to treat the Bible as less than the inerrant, infallible Word of God. I do not think that God takes that lightly. I do not. It is not just another opinion to me. It is borderline heresy.
They do not want us to focus on "irrelevant" details but on the big picture, the Big Story, of the Bible. I want to focus on that, too, but I will not compromise the Word to satisfy my need to reconcile scientific claims with the Bible. I will not let even scientific extrapolation (that's what it is) determine my theology or my view of the Bible.
Even if we can agree that the most important thing is the Big Story of the Bible, as they say, and holding to the faith of the creeds, I think we need to remember that, according to the old saying, "God is in the details".
But that is not what this post is about. I want to say, first of all, I am not going to pick on theistic evolutionists today, but rather criticize what some them have said about related matters. It seems that, for some of them, their scientific views are determining, to a large degree, their doctrine.
I responded to a post on the Jesus Creed blog about Adam and Eve as "special creations". It may now be common terminology, but not too long ago it was taken for granted that Adam and Eve were historical figures, created from dust and a rib, falling into sin, bringing a flood of corruption and death into the world. And, of course, they are the parents of all mankind.
Now we are told that the hypothesis of evolution will not allow us to be descended from a single set of humans. We would have to come out of a large set of prehuman apelike creatures. (I am truly trying to not sound mocking as I write this.) Hence, the discussion on the blog has been about whether or not Adam was a historical figure or a fictional one made up to teach a spiritual truth.
I asserted that Adam was indeed a historical figure and that any other view was unbiblical. You might imagine that I got an immediate response. I did. In fact, both Scot McKnight and RJS who wrote the piece had objections to what I said. Scot pointed out that the Bible contains both history and fiction (parables, etc) that teach spiritual truth. RJS said that we need to focus on the fact that the Big Story of the Bible is not about Adam but about Jesus.
I simply pointed out the fact that the Bible does not treat the story of Adam as fiction, but is part of the historical narrative of Genesis. There is an introduction (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) followed by ten narrative sections beginning with the story of Adam and Eve. They insist on treating the first eleven chapters of Genesis as fiction and the rest as history. Why? Each of these sections begins similarly ("These are the generations of ...") followed by historical narrative. Same genre.
I noted as well that Paul treated Adam as a historical figure as does Luke. Luke shows that Jesus is a descendant of Adam! Jesus, while not mentioning Adam, does mention his son Abel. He said that His generation would be held liable for the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Jesus seems to think that Abel was a real, not fictional, person. The author of Hebrews used Abel as an example of faith. It is clear that Luke, Paul, the author of Hebrews and Jesus all thought of these OT characters as real historical people. That does not matter to some who put science above the Bible. One even said that he did not think that Gen 2-3 was about Adam. If that is not a revealing statement, I don't know what is.
Here is what I think is even worse than saying that Jesus did not know that Abel was not a historical person (or that if He did He indicated otherwise). They think that there was not a Fall of Man at all. They think that God created us as we are today - sinful creatures destined to die. Sin is built into us by God. Why would they say such a thing? Because their scientific idea tells them that it could be no other way. Death, as they say, is simply a part of life and the way that God created us. It is not the result of sin.
So there goes the doctrine of original sin right out the window. It's not because they have carefully examined the Bible and found that it teaches otherwise. No, it's because their scientific belief (that's what it really is) tells them what they must believe.
They now have no desire to reconcile apparent contradictions in the Bible. To them the historical portions of Scripture are unreliable. They act as if they are the first to notice differences in the gospels. It is now easy for them to treat the Bible as less than the inerrant, infallible Word of God. I do not think that God takes that lightly. I do not. It is not just another opinion to me. It is borderline heresy.
They do not want us to focus on "irrelevant" details but on the big picture, the Big Story, of the Bible. I want to focus on that, too, but I will not compromise the Word to satisfy my need to reconcile scientific claims with the Bible. I will not let even scientific extrapolation (that's what it is) determine my theology or my view of the Bible.
Even if we can agree that the most important thing is the Big Story of the Bible, as they say, and holding to the faith of the creeds, I think we need to remember that, according to the old saying, "God is in the details".
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Does each of us have a "divine spark"?
In my Sunday School class last week I made an offhand comment that ignited a big discussion. I noted that one of our nation's politicians (always a resource for bad theology) had said that "we all have a divine spark" and therefore we should support her political ideology. (I promise to leave the politics out of it.) It seems that some in my class believed in this idea of some sort of "divine spark". Sometimes I forget that Christians pick up phrases from the world that sound real good but are contrary to biblical teaching. I mean, doesn't it sound real good and spiritual and uplifting to say that we all have a divine spark. It seems spiritual and egalitarian and uplifting all at the same time.
Before we can discuss any subject we must define what we are talking about. If we have different definitions of the same word or expression, then we will end up talking past one another. If we ask five people what is meant by the expression ‘divine spark’ we will likely end up with five definitions. However, it seems to me that most people who believe that we all have a ‘divine spark’ would be hard-pressed to give a definition of it at all. The concept is rather vague.
Part of the problem of defining it is that it could mean quite different things to different people depending on one’s own religious thinking and background. To a Christian it might sound something like being created in the image of God. To someone who does not believe in a Creator, it might mean that God is not out there somewhere with a distinct personality and existence but simply a part of each of us. That would mean that we all have the possibility of godhood. I am not worried about most of the church because Christians do not aspire to ‘godhood’ and would reject any such thing as idolatrous and blasphemous. Perhaps it is best that we examine how the term has been used and how it is used today.
The origins of the concept of a ‘divine spark’ in each of us goes back to an ancient Greek philosophy called “Gnosticism”. Here is a quotation: “The idea of a divine spark, most common in Gnostic and mystical religions, is that every human being possesses either a connection with God or a "part" of God. The goal of life, then, is to allow the divine spark to influence us toward love, peace, and harmony.”
Today, the concept is often divorced from any sort of religious rituals but is instead an undefined form of spirituality that anyone can achieve. And people ‘ignite the spark’ of divinity in various ways. It might be a Christian experience or not. Some of those who believe in this talk about “being spiritual, but not religious”. They will also criticize Christians who insist that one must receive Christ in order to be saved. They say that we are narrow and intolerant because we do not recognize that different people and cultures might follow a different path to God. If one has a ‘divine spark’, is it not possible to ignite that spark in different ways? Part of the problem with this is that it is man-centered. It is we that ignite the spark rather than God freely offering His grace through the redemption accomplished by Christ.
Let’s look at what scripture teaches:
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient … Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:1-5)
Notice how Paul says that by nature we were “children of wrath”. It was our spiritual nature that was wrong. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. He was cut off from the presence of God. His nature changed. His relationship with God was broken. God did not reignite some spark. He would provide a sacrifice for his sin.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) Jesus called these very religious people “children of the devil”. They did not have ‘part of God in them’, they had the devil in them. (I mean their spiritual natures were wrong. Their spiritual natures was like the devil’s – sinful. They were not demon-possessed.)
John later explains that not all are children of God. “We know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are.” (1 John 3:10) Jesus told Nicodemus, a good Pharisee who supported Jesus, “You must be born again.”
Ezekiel 36:26 explains the new birth this way: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you.” If we each had a ‘divine spark’ why does God need to give us a new spirit? The old one would do just fine.
We are all created in the image of God, but that image has been corrupted through sin. That is why Peter said that when we become “partakers of the divine nature” that we “escape the corruption that is in the world.” (2 Peter 1:4)
Perhaps you would say that by the ‘divine spark’ you mean the ‘divine image’, but we have shown these to be very different concepts. Being made in the divine image means that you have the capacity to be either a child of God or a child of the Devil. Jesus did not die on the cross to ignite a spark. He came to seek and save those who were lost.
Conclusion: We are all created in the divine image. Jesus came to make those who receive Him partakers of the divine nature. There is no such thing as a divine spark. It is important to use biblical language to properly express biblical truths.
Before we can discuss any subject we must define what we are talking about. If we have different definitions of the same word or expression, then we will end up talking past one another. If we ask five people what is meant by the expression ‘divine spark’ we will likely end up with five definitions. However, it seems to me that most people who believe that we all have a ‘divine spark’ would be hard-pressed to give a definition of it at all. The concept is rather vague.
Part of the problem of defining it is that it could mean quite different things to different people depending on one’s own religious thinking and background. To a Christian it might sound something like being created in the image of God. To someone who does not believe in a Creator, it might mean that God is not out there somewhere with a distinct personality and existence but simply a part of each of us. That would mean that we all have the possibility of godhood. I am not worried about most of the church because Christians do not aspire to ‘godhood’ and would reject any such thing as idolatrous and blasphemous. Perhaps it is best that we examine how the term has been used and how it is used today.
The origins of the concept of a ‘divine spark’ in each of us goes back to an ancient Greek philosophy called “Gnosticism”. Here is a quotation: “The idea of a divine spark, most common in Gnostic and mystical religions, is that every human being possesses either a connection with God or a "part" of God. The goal of life, then, is to allow the divine spark to influence us toward love, peace, and harmony.”
Today, the concept is often divorced from any sort of religious rituals but is instead an undefined form of spirituality that anyone can achieve. And people ‘ignite the spark’ of divinity in various ways. It might be a Christian experience or not. Some of those who believe in this talk about “being spiritual, but not religious”. They will also criticize Christians who insist that one must receive Christ in order to be saved. They say that we are narrow and intolerant because we do not recognize that different people and cultures might follow a different path to God. If one has a ‘divine spark’, is it not possible to ignite that spark in different ways? Part of the problem with this is that it is man-centered. It is we that ignite the spark rather than God freely offering His grace through the redemption accomplished by Christ.
Let’s look at what scripture teaches:
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient … Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:1-5)
Notice how Paul says that by nature we were “children of wrath”. It was our spiritual nature that was wrong. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. He was cut off from the presence of God. His nature changed. His relationship with God was broken. God did not reignite some spark. He would provide a sacrifice for his sin.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) Jesus called these very religious people “children of the devil”. They did not have ‘part of God in them’, they had the devil in them. (I mean their spiritual natures were wrong. Their spiritual natures was like the devil’s – sinful. They were not demon-possessed.)
John later explains that not all are children of God. “We know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are.” (1 John 3:10) Jesus told Nicodemus, a good Pharisee who supported Jesus, “You must be born again.”
Ezekiel 36:26 explains the new birth this way: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you.” If we each had a ‘divine spark’ why does God need to give us a new spirit? The old one would do just fine.
We are all created in the image of God, but that image has been corrupted through sin. That is why Peter said that when we become “partakers of the divine nature” that we “escape the corruption that is in the world.” (2 Peter 1:4)
Perhaps you would say that by the ‘divine spark’ you mean the ‘divine image’, but we have shown these to be very different concepts. Being made in the divine image means that you have the capacity to be either a child of God or a child of the Devil. Jesus did not die on the cross to ignite a spark. He came to seek and save those who were lost.
Conclusion: We are all created in the divine image. Jesus came to make those who receive Him partakers of the divine nature. There is no such thing as a divine spark. It is important to use biblical language to properly express biblical truths.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
"Heresy" is a good thing - the word, I mean.
There are certain words, I hope we can agree, that we should never use. Two of them are the "f" word and the "n" word.They are vulgar and inappropriate. Lately, it seems, that hardly a day goes by without someone saying that we cannot use this word or that. If we use a certain word, we are told, then others will be offended or hurt or, worse, will be evidence of racism, sexism or some sort of chauvinistic attitude.
But one must always beware when someone says that we cannot use certain words. They usually have an agenda. Understand this - whoever can control the language can control the debate. For example, we used to say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" when discussing abortion. These expressions are clear and specific. The problem was that "pro-abortion" just did not sound very good so that side of the debate insisted on being called "pro-choice". Everyone went along with this. But since pro-choice sounds better than "anti-abortion", the other side then insisted on being called "pro-life". All this is clever rhetoric, but it's a bit too clever.
Those who are pro-choice must defend the expression no matter what it implies. It implies, and we are told this explicitly, over and over, that the decision to have an abortion lies with a (pregnant) woman and her doctor. The word "pro-abortion" does not have to mean that. A person could say that they favor abortions for those in the first trimester and not in the second or third trimester. (Many other countries have just such restrictions.) Or a person could be pro-abortion and insist on parental notification for minors as is done with any other medical condition. But if you are pro-choice, you must support third trimester abortion on a young teenage girl without her parents' consent because your argument is based on the argument represented by the term "pro-choice". The words used changes the argument.
Recently, I have heard of two words that some wish to ban from our vocabularies. The first is the word 'slut' and the second is 'heretic'. First, the term 'slut' is used, generally as a pejorative, indicating a woman who is promiscuous. First, I will say that it is certainly not something to be used as a verbal weapon or a slander. But should it never be used? Or, as others have argued, is there no such thing as a slut? Should promiscuous women be viewed positively? However wrongly a word may be used does not mean that it does not have a proper usage.
Imagine this scene: a mother is talking to her teenage daughter about sex and she tells her daughter that she should not act like a slut. Would that not be a good use of the term? Strong, negative language can have a deterrent effect on bad behavior. I am glad there are terms that might make us feel bad or uncomfortable because it is sometimes necessary to use them to get through certain truths to people who need to hear them.
What about the word 'heretic'? Should we use it? One blogger has suggested that we should never use the term because it is dehumanizing. To me such a statement is a little ridiculous. The word 'heretic' today barely has the power to dehumanize. At one time, to be called a 'heretic' was a dangerous thing. Many heretics and so-called heretics have been killed or exiled because of it.
My question is this: is it inaccurate? Just like the word 'slut' the word 'heretic' is often accurate even if it is often used wrongly. A person is a heretic if he departs from Christian orthodoxy. Those who wish to ban the word are not really concerned about "dehumanization". They want to control the argument. They want to do away with the concept of heresy and, therefore, of orthodoxy. They want to be able to believe whatever they want and do whatever suits them and still be called "Christian". I am not buying this. There is heresy and there is orthodoxy. You don't get to change the terms of the debate. If you don't want to be called a heretic, stop being one.
People today have the hubris to say that they have the right to redefine Christianity. It was defined a long time ago and it was done very carefully and very well. That does not mean that everything that was passed down to us was perfect. It was not. But the basic tenets of Christianity have remained the same throughout church history. When corrections were made (think about the Reformation), it was done by going back to the founding documents (the New Testament) and carefully considering the biblical evidence. They did not say that some parts of the Bible were true and other parts were not true or not for us today. They did not take current notions and impose them on the church. But especially, they did not redefine morality or Jesus or the resurrection or anything else that was essential.
If your views are not orthodox, then do not seek to change the church. Go start your own religion and leave Christianity alone.
[Full Disclosure: I have been called (inaccurately, I might add) a heretic and did not like it. I found it annoying rather than dehumanizing.]
But one must always beware when someone says that we cannot use certain words. They usually have an agenda. Understand this - whoever can control the language can control the debate. For example, we used to say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" when discussing abortion. These expressions are clear and specific. The problem was that "pro-abortion" just did not sound very good so that side of the debate insisted on being called "pro-choice". Everyone went along with this. But since pro-choice sounds better than "anti-abortion", the other side then insisted on being called "pro-life". All this is clever rhetoric, but it's a bit too clever.
Those who are pro-choice must defend the expression no matter what it implies. It implies, and we are told this explicitly, over and over, that the decision to have an abortion lies with a (pregnant) woman and her doctor. The word "pro-abortion" does not have to mean that. A person could say that they favor abortions for those in the first trimester and not in the second or third trimester. (Many other countries have just such restrictions.) Or a person could be pro-abortion and insist on parental notification for minors as is done with any other medical condition. But if you are pro-choice, you must support third trimester abortion on a young teenage girl without her parents' consent because your argument is based on the argument represented by the term "pro-choice". The words used changes the argument.
Recently, I have heard of two words that some wish to ban from our vocabularies. The first is the word 'slut' and the second is 'heretic'. First, the term 'slut' is used, generally as a pejorative, indicating a woman who is promiscuous. First, I will say that it is certainly not something to be used as a verbal weapon or a slander. But should it never be used? Or, as others have argued, is there no such thing as a slut? Should promiscuous women be viewed positively? However wrongly a word may be used does not mean that it does not have a proper usage.
Imagine this scene: a mother is talking to her teenage daughter about sex and she tells her daughter that she should not act like a slut. Would that not be a good use of the term? Strong, negative language can have a deterrent effect on bad behavior. I am glad there are terms that might make us feel bad or uncomfortable because it is sometimes necessary to use them to get through certain truths to people who need to hear them.
What about the word 'heretic'? Should we use it? One blogger has suggested that we should never use the term because it is dehumanizing. To me such a statement is a little ridiculous. The word 'heretic' today barely has the power to dehumanize. At one time, to be called a 'heretic' was a dangerous thing. Many heretics and so-called heretics have been killed or exiled because of it.
My question is this: is it inaccurate? Just like the word 'slut' the word 'heretic' is often accurate even if it is often used wrongly. A person is a heretic if he departs from Christian orthodoxy. Those who wish to ban the word are not really concerned about "dehumanization". They want to control the argument. They want to do away with the concept of heresy and, therefore, of orthodoxy. They want to be able to believe whatever they want and do whatever suits them and still be called "Christian". I am not buying this. There is heresy and there is orthodoxy. You don't get to change the terms of the debate. If you don't want to be called a heretic, stop being one.
People today have the hubris to say that they have the right to redefine Christianity. It was defined a long time ago and it was done very carefully and very well. That does not mean that everything that was passed down to us was perfect. It was not. But the basic tenets of Christianity have remained the same throughout church history. When corrections were made (think about the Reformation), it was done by going back to the founding documents (the New Testament) and carefully considering the biblical evidence. They did not say that some parts of the Bible were true and other parts were not true or not for us today. They did not take current notions and impose them on the church. But especially, they did not redefine morality or Jesus or the resurrection or anything else that was essential.
If your views are not orthodox, then do not seek to change the church. Go start your own religion and leave Christianity alone.
[Full Disclosure: I have been called (inaccurately, I might add) a heretic and did not like it. I found it annoying rather than dehumanizing.]
Monday, March 3, 2014
Church use of biblical expressions, part 2
In my first post on the church's use of biblical expressions, I noted that the church often uses expressions differently than how they are used in the Bible. I said that this is fine except when we think we are using an expression the way that the Bible does when we are not. If I had my way, we would use them exactly as the Bible uses them to avoid confusion.
For this second post, I have chosen the term "filled with the Holy Spirit" or just "filled with the Spirit."
While I have not heard this term much in my present church, I used to hear it often among Pentecostals and even some others. They do not necessarily use the term to mean the same thing. Some, not all, Pentecostals will use it to talk about how they felt at a particular time when they sensed a strong presence of the Spirit in a meeting.
Others have used the expression, "Spirit-filled", to describe Christians who live a godly life and who have a close walk with the Lord. Now you might think that that is what the Bible, especially the New Testament, says about Christians who are filled with the Spirit, but this is not the case. And I will certainly not make the argument that we do not need to live a godly life or that the Spirit does not have a key role to play in that. He surely does.
But there is a difference in the Bible between "walking in the Spirit" and being "filled with the Spirit". The term "walking in (or by) the Spirit" means that we are being led by and influenced by the the Holy Spirit to live a godly and holy life. "I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:16,22-23). We certainly need to do this, but you will notice that this passage says nothing about being filled with the Spirit.
What does it mean then to be "filled with the Spirit"? Let's look at what the New Testament says about this:
"He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born." - Luke 1:15 - referring to the birth of John the Baptist.
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit." Ephesians 5:18 - notice a similar contrast here and in Luke between being drunk on wine and being filled with the Spirit.
"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" Luke 1:67
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2:4
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly." Acts 4:31 The church was praying after the apostles were threatened.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:8-10
This is just about every instance where the term "filled with the Spirit" was used. A similar expression is "full of the Holy Spirit."
"Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 - Luke tells of the martyrdom of Stephen after he had given his great speech to those who subsequently stoned him.
The most common element among these passages regarding being filled with the Spirit is one of divinely-inspired speech. That might be prophecy, tongues or even bold witness, but speech seems to be involved. (One could nitpick by noting that John could not have spoken in his mother's womb, but he did, of course, have a great prophetic ministry.) Now one does not have to be very mature to speak in tongues (read Corinthians) or to prophecy (a donkey did it once) or even testify boldly in Jesus' name. However, we must realize that God wants us to be both grow in grace by walking in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit as well. We are not to choose one at the expense of the other.
God wants us to mature and grow and lead a godly life, but He also wants us to be "filled with the Spirit", speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for the edification and blessing of the church.
For this second post, I have chosen the term "filled with the Holy Spirit" or just "filled with the Spirit."
While I have not heard this term much in my present church, I used to hear it often among Pentecostals and even some others. They do not necessarily use the term to mean the same thing. Some, not all, Pentecostals will use it to talk about how they felt at a particular time when they sensed a strong presence of the Spirit in a meeting.
Others have used the expression, "Spirit-filled", to describe Christians who live a godly life and who have a close walk with the Lord. Now you might think that that is what the Bible, especially the New Testament, says about Christians who are filled with the Spirit, but this is not the case. And I will certainly not make the argument that we do not need to live a godly life or that the Spirit does not have a key role to play in that. He surely does.
But there is a difference in the Bible between "walking in the Spirit" and being "filled with the Spirit". The term "walking in (or by) the Spirit" means that we are being led by and influenced by the the Holy Spirit to live a godly and holy life. "I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:16,22-23). We certainly need to do this, but you will notice that this passage says nothing about being filled with the Spirit.
What does it mean then to be "filled with the Spirit"? Let's look at what the New Testament says about this:
"He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born." - Luke 1:15 - referring to the birth of John the Baptist.
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit." Ephesians 5:18 - notice a similar contrast here and in Luke between being drunk on wine and being filled with the Spirit.
"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" Luke 1:67
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2:4
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly." Acts 4:31 The church was praying after the apostles were threatened.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:8-10
This is just about every instance where the term "filled with the Spirit" was used. A similar expression is "full of the Holy Spirit."
"Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 - Luke tells of the martyrdom of Stephen after he had given his great speech to those who subsequently stoned him.
The most common element among these passages regarding being filled with the Spirit is one of divinely-inspired speech. That might be prophecy, tongues or even bold witness, but speech seems to be involved. (One could nitpick by noting that John could not have spoken in his mother's womb, but he did, of course, have a great prophetic ministry.) Now one does not have to be very mature to speak in tongues (read Corinthians) or to prophecy (a donkey did it once) or even testify boldly in Jesus' name. However, we must realize that God wants us to be both grow in grace by walking in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit as well. We are not to choose one at the expense of the other.
God wants us to mature and grow and lead a godly life, but He also wants us to be "filled with the Spirit", speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for the edification and blessing of the church.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Church uses of biblical expressions, part 1
I have noticed that in the church we have a habit of using biblical expressions in a way different than how they are used in the Bible itself. This is harmless for the most part, unless we think that the biblical expression itself carries the meaning we give to it. In the next few posts, I am going to examine some of these expressions and sort out what the Bible means when the expression is used and what we usually mean when we say it.
The first expression I will tackle is one which Christians use on a regular basis, but it is one where the biblical meaning has almost been entirely lost. The expression is "The Lord (God) is with us (them)(him)(her)".
Now what do most people mean when they use this expression. Generally, they mean that they hope or knew that God was by their side and helping them in some way. It is often used as a blessing as in "The Lord be with you." This is how it is used in the book of Ruth by Boaz. "Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, “May the Lord be with you.” And they said to him, “May the Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) We use this expression as a blessing as well and it certainly is a biblical use of the expression.
But we need to see how else the Bible uses this expression to see how we might fully understand what it means. "The Lord was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. Now his master saw that the Lord was with him and how the Lord caused all that he did to prosper in his hand." (Genesis 39:2-3) Notice how the Lord was with Joseph. He blessed the work of his hands.
In another passage: "So Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the Lord was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it. The chief jailer did not supervise anything under Joseph’s charge because the Lord was with him; and whatever he did, the Lord made to prosper." (Genesis 39:20-23) In this passage, Joseph, being wrongfully accused, is thrown into jail. However, God is "with Joseph" and gives him favor with his jailor.
Joshua 6:27 "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land." This speaks of Joshua's conquests.
In Judges 1: "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country ... Likewise the house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and the Lord was with them."
God blessed the prophetic ministry of Samuel. "Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail." (1 Samuel 3:19)
1 Samuel 18:14 "David was prospering in all his ways for the Lord was with him." God gave David victory on the battlefield. I could go on and on with similar passages.
If God was ever with anyone, He was with His Son, Jesus. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (Acts 10:38) Jesus healed the sick because God was with Him.
Acts 11:20-21 "There were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord." People are being saved because God was with them in their preaching.
There is a lot more, but you get the idea. When the Bible says that God was with someone it means that God gave them supernatural success, victory, favor or blessing on their task or ministry. Is that what you mean by "the Lord be with you"? I hope it is. I hope it means more than experiencing the presence of God while the Devil beats on us or oppresses us. In the Bible, it is an expression that implies deliverance, healing and victory.
The first expression I will tackle is one which Christians use on a regular basis, but it is one where the biblical meaning has almost been entirely lost. The expression is "The Lord (God) is with us (them)(him)(her)".
Now what do most people mean when they use this expression. Generally, they mean that they hope or knew that God was by their side and helping them in some way. It is often used as a blessing as in "The Lord be with you." This is how it is used in the book of Ruth by Boaz. "Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, “May the Lord be with you.” And they said to him, “May the Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) We use this expression as a blessing as well and it certainly is a biblical use of the expression.
But we need to see how else the Bible uses this expression to see how we might fully understand what it means. "The Lord was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. Now his master saw that the Lord was with him and how the Lord caused all that he did to prosper in his hand." (Genesis 39:2-3) Notice how the Lord was with Joseph. He blessed the work of his hands.
In another passage: "So Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the Lord was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it. The chief jailer did not supervise anything under Joseph’s charge because the Lord was with him; and whatever he did, the Lord made to prosper." (Genesis 39:20-23) In this passage, Joseph, being wrongfully accused, is thrown into jail. However, God is "with Joseph" and gives him favor with his jailor.
Joshua 6:27 "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land." This speaks of Joshua's conquests.
In Judges 1: "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country ... Likewise the house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and the Lord was with them."
God blessed the prophetic ministry of Samuel. "Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail." (1 Samuel 3:19)
1 Samuel 18:14 "David was prospering in all his ways for the Lord was with him." God gave David victory on the battlefield. I could go on and on with similar passages.
If God was ever with anyone, He was with His Son, Jesus. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (Acts 10:38) Jesus healed the sick because God was with Him.
Acts 11:20-21 "There were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord." People are being saved because God was with them in their preaching.
There is a lot more, but you get the idea. When the Bible says that God was with someone it means that God gave them supernatural success, victory, favor or blessing on their task or ministry. Is that what you mean by "the Lord be with you"? I hope it is. I hope it means more than experiencing the presence of God while the Devil beats on us or oppresses us. In the Bible, it is an expression that implies deliverance, healing and victory.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
O Faithful Town of Bethlehem
I was just watching a newscast (it's Christmas Eve) and they were mentioning Jesus' birthplace, Bethlehem. They also showed a map of modern Israel with an arrow and dot showing the approximate location of Bethlehem. There was only one problem. They had the wrong location. They had Bethlehem in about the place where Nazareth is. Nazareth is in Galilee; Bethlehem is in Judea, south of Jerusalem a few miles. Mary and Joseph had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem late in Mary's pregnancy.
But did you ever wonder why God wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? Now it does not seem to be a historical accident. It is not by chance that Caesar Augustus ordered everyone back to the place of their families' origins. There is only one other time in Roman history when such a demand was made regarding a census. Besides, this was not even the regular census which occurred every 14 years. It was a special one. A special census was rarely done.
We might be tempted to simply say that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy that the messiah would be born there. But things do not happen just to fulfill prophecy; the event prophesied has significance. Until recent months, I had not thought too much about it. I just sort of figured that Jesus was the son of David and God wanted Him to be born where David was born.
I think that there is more to it than that. This is something that God seems to have gone to some lengths to have happen. Is there something special about Bethlehem that motivated this whole thing? I believe so.
I recently taught the book of Ruth in a bible study. You know the story of Ruth: Ruth the Moabitess was daughter-in-law to Naomi, an Israelite woman who lost her husband and two sons-in-law and had nobody to support her. Ruth, being widowed as well but younger than Naomi, could marry again, have children, etc., but chose to stay with Naomi and to make Naomi's God her own. Ruth and Naomi go back to the town where Naomi was from - Bethlehem.
Ruth ends up marrying a man from Bethlehem, Boaz, and saving herself and her mother-in-law from dire poverty. It is a beautiful story of love and faithfulness. I have digressed a bit, but we naturally focus on Ruth and Naomi and Boaz while not seeing something very important about Bethlehem.
Bethlehem seems to have been a place of faithfulness to the Lord. Remember that this all happens during the time of the Judges, before Israel had any king. This period was marked by a repeated falling into idolatry. Bethlehem was an exception to this. Bethlehem remained faithful to God. Notice how Boaz and the other Bethlehemites speak to one another. "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) They spoke to one another like believers today talk to each other.
Another thing we need to see is that they practiced the Law of Moses, though not in some kind of pharisaic manner. They used the Law to bring blessing to those Israelites who had fallen on hard times or were poor. The Law stated that the Israelites were not to reap the edges of the fields but leave them to the poor and needy for their sustenance. This Boaz did and it seems to have been the practice in Bethlehem. Ruth gathered after the reapers and gains the special notice of Boaz.
More importantly, the Law also provided a way for those who had fallen on hard times to reclaim their inheritance and posterity. Naomi's husband had land around Bethlehem, but Naomi was not capable of farming it. So her husband was going to lose his heritage and land since his sons were dead. Boaz marries Ruth and becomes what the Bible calls the kinsman-redeemer (depending on your translation). A close kinsman could marry the widow (in this case, the daughter-in-law of the widow), take the land on behalf of the original owner's family and raise up sons who could reclaim the land and continue the family's line. (This is what the Law was really about, not about keeping all kinds of arcane rules for the purpose of ritual purity.)
Of course, we know that Ruth and Boaz have a great-grandson, David, who becomes the king of Israel and from whom Christ will come. But notice that David grows up in this place of faithfulness to God. I do not think that is an accident. God has always intended that succeeding generations be faithful to Him. God can do great things through faithful families. God chose Abraham for this very reason. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (Genesis 18:18-19)
I really believe that God wanted His Son associated with a place of faithfulness to Himself. He wanted Jesus to be born in a place that for generation after generation had followed the Lord. In fact, it seems that the mother and supposed father that God had for His Son were also these kind of faithful Israelites. At the time of Jesus' birth, there were many who thought they were God's favorites. The Pharisees, in particular, thought that by firm adherence to their traditions they would be righteous. Jesus told them that their hearts were far from God. Yet Joseph and Mary obeyed the Lord when He directed them by His angels. They seem to be what the OT calls the "faithful remnant".
God loves faithfulness. He rewards faithfulness. He promotes those who are faithful rather than those who are talented or have perfect doctrine or are scrupulous about religious rituals or who never miss the mark (sin). We know, for example, that David sinned, but he was quick to repent and get right with God. I don't know about you, but I can relate to those in the Bible that have sinned rather than those like Daniel who never seem to miss it. Daniel, of course, was faithful. But other saints of old were faithful despite the fact that they sinned sometimes. It is nice to know that one does not have to be perfect to be counted faithful.
But did you ever wonder why God wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? Now it does not seem to be a historical accident. It is not by chance that Caesar Augustus ordered everyone back to the place of their families' origins. There is only one other time in Roman history when such a demand was made regarding a census. Besides, this was not even the regular census which occurred every 14 years. It was a special one. A special census was rarely done.
We might be tempted to simply say that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy that the messiah would be born there. But things do not happen just to fulfill prophecy; the event prophesied has significance. Until recent months, I had not thought too much about it. I just sort of figured that Jesus was the son of David and God wanted Him to be born where David was born.
I think that there is more to it than that. This is something that God seems to have gone to some lengths to have happen. Is there something special about Bethlehem that motivated this whole thing? I believe so.
I recently taught the book of Ruth in a bible study. You know the story of Ruth: Ruth the Moabitess was daughter-in-law to Naomi, an Israelite woman who lost her husband and two sons-in-law and had nobody to support her. Ruth, being widowed as well but younger than Naomi, could marry again, have children, etc., but chose to stay with Naomi and to make Naomi's God her own. Ruth and Naomi go back to the town where Naomi was from - Bethlehem.
Ruth ends up marrying a man from Bethlehem, Boaz, and saving herself and her mother-in-law from dire poverty. It is a beautiful story of love and faithfulness. I have digressed a bit, but we naturally focus on Ruth and Naomi and Boaz while not seeing something very important about Bethlehem.
Bethlehem seems to have been a place of faithfulness to the Lord. Remember that this all happens during the time of the Judges, before Israel had any king. This period was marked by a repeated falling into idolatry. Bethlehem was an exception to this. Bethlehem remained faithful to God. Notice how Boaz and the other Bethlehemites speak to one another. "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) They spoke to one another like believers today talk to each other.
Another thing we need to see is that they practiced the Law of Moses, though not in some kind of pharisaic manner. They used the Law to bring blessing to those Israelites who had fallen on hard times or were poor. The Law stated that the Israelites were not to reap the edges of the fields but leave them to the poor and needy for their sustenance. This Boaz did and it seems to have been the practice in Bethlehem. Ruth gathered after the reapers and gains the special notice of Boaz.
More importantly, the Law also provided a way for those who had fallen on hard times to reclaim their inheritance and posterity. Naomi's husband had land around Bethlehem, but Naomi was not capable of farming it. So her husband was going to lose his heritage and land since his sons were dead. Boaz marries Ruth and becomes what the Bible calls the kinsman-redeemer (depending on your translation). A close kinsman could marry the widow (in this case, the daughter-in-law of the widow), take the land on behalf of the original owner's family and raise up sons who could reclaim the land and continue the family's line. (This is what the Law was really about, not about keeping all kinds of arcane rules for the purpose of ritual purity.)
Of course, we know that Ruth and Boaz have a great-grandson, David, who becomes the king of Israel and from whom Christ will come. But notice that David grows up in this place of faithfulness to God. I do not think that is an accident. God has always intended that succeeding generations be faithful to Him. God can do great things through faithful families. God chose Abraham for this very reason. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (Genesis 18:18-19)
I really believe that God wanted His Son associated with a place of faithfulness to Himself. He wanted Jesus to be born in a place that for generation after generation had followed the Lord. In fact, it seems that the mother and supposed father that God had for His Son were also these kind of faithful Israelites. At the time of Jesus' birth, there were many who thought they were God's favorites. The Pharisees, in particular, thought that by firm adherence to their traditions they would be righteous. Jesus told them that their hearts were far from God. Yet Joseph and Mary obeyed the Lord when He directed them by His angels. They seem to be what the OT calls the "faithful remnant".
God loves faithfulness. He rewards faithfulness. He promotes those who are faithful rather than those who are talented or have perfect doctrine or are scrupulous about religious rituals or who never miss the mark (sin). We know, for example, that David sinned, but he was quick to repent and get right with God. I don't know about you, but I can relate to those in the Bible that have sinned rather than those like Daniel who never seem to miss it. Daniel, of course, was faithful. But other saints of old were faithful despite the fact that they sinned sometimes. It is nice to know that one does not have to be perfect to be counted faithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)