Christmas – Here’s the rest of the story

Posted by Dan C. on

As was presented in the previous post, God’s view of Christmas might be a bit different than ours. We tend to begin with the Nativity and focus on love, peace, and goodwill toward all men (a misinterpretation of to whom peace is offered by God). God, however knew, from before time as we know it, that He was sending His own Son to earth to suffer and die on the Cross of Calvary for the sins of His people. The real meaning of Christmas is wrapped up in the Cross. We tend to NOT go there – maybe it spoils the “mood” – what we so glibly term “the spirit of Christmas”.

This year some who call themselves Christians are making overt efforts to include every religious faith in what are, Biblically at least, distinctively Christian celebrations. I won’t go into details here – they are antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and should be unconscionable to every true believer.

Perhaps we who calls ourselves have brought it on ourselves. Rarely in my own recollections of Christmas do I remember a focus on “the rest of the story”. The belief that all religious faiths worship the same God by some pretty prominent persons in America is becoming more and more rampant. Some evangelical leaders no longer will take a stand on the exclusivity of Christ as expressed in scripture. At the moment there is an all out attack on Sola Scriptura, one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation.

Dear Christian readers, this is a call to share “the rest of the story” this Christmas season, a call to share the Gospel that Christ came to die for our sins – that He came for the Cross. This season should be one of the two easiest times of the year to share the truth of the Gospel and why He came to earth in the first place – God’s view of Christmas.

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Romans 1:16 – The Apostle Paul

Mary Did You Know?

Posted by Dan C. on

Mary knew she was blessed among women, Joseph knew she would give birth to the One who would save His people from their sins. The disciples were told, but did not really understand until it was Finished and the Holy Spirit was given.

The Father knew.   He was sending His Son to earth for the Cross. ‘Christmas’ from the Father’s view. . .

The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

Posted by Dan C. on

The above title is the same as a Newsweek Article that you can read in its entirety here.  The rest of this post is the reply offered to the article by Frank Turk over at Pyromaniacs. My sole contribution is to say that it would be worthwhile to read both, and that Frank Turk’s reply is a must read for anyone on either side of the issue, and even any fence straddlers out there. . .here is the reply:

Of Course, she says – Frank Turk

Before you start here today, Dan advised me to split this essay in half because it is exceeding long — even by the standard of, well, what Dan and I usually write. I did not take his advice, so pack a lunch before you get started here — and my apologies to your boss and your family as you dig in.

The blogosphere is absolutely a-twitter over that Newsweek essay reproaching the conservative view of marriage – and rightly so. I mean, we have all read at least this much of this piece of writing:

“Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.”

And most folks responding have sort of lost it in various ways because let’s face it: if anyone read Hamlet or Harry Potter with the critical finesse exercised in this paragraph, well, one would think they were reading something from a blog with only 5 or 6 readers – not from a magazine which people would (and did) pay money for.

But the thing which I think is interesting is the underlined part: “of course not”.

Lisa Miller’s point here is clear: if this is what conservative readers of the Bible – the ones advocating against “gay marriage” – mean when they say a “Biblical definition of marriage”, of course no one would want that. There’s a certain irony in this, but if the “religious conservatives” would “define marriage as the Bible does” – and define it therefore as loose polygamy for the sensually and spiritually weak, a vehicle only for the satisfaction of urges one cannot control for the fulfillment of promises one doesn’t think God is willing or able to keep, of course nobody would want that.

The problem for Lisa Miller, and her editor Jon Meacham, and their publication Newsweek, is that this is not the definition of marriage religious conservatives are promoting.

I am about to pour out the 100-proof polemics here, so before I tell you what exactly “conservatives” are (or at least ought to be) demanding, let me make something transparently clear: what I am personally demanding is not some sort of crime of hate against people with whom we disagree. I could repost it here, but back last summer I posted this piece about apologetic encounters with people who have loved ones who are g-l-b-t-q, or are themselves g-l-b-t-q, and I stand by it emphatically. This is not about how to injure anyone.

Here’s where I’d start: there is no question that of course the Christian church does not define marriage the way Ms. Miller has in her opening salvo here. But the reason Ms. Miller can make her point as hap-hazardly as she does in her essay is that the church has done a lousy job of defining marriage in the last 100 years. Someone might want to make the case that the church has been doing a poor job longer than that – I leave that case to that person, whomever he or she may be.

But here’s the truth: nobody can frame Barack Obama as a supporter of the war in Iraq, right? Nobody can frame Bill O’Reilly as a supporter of Barack Obama, yes? Nobody can frame Sean Penn as a political conservative – or even as a moderate. In fact, nobody can frame the advocates against Prop 8 as advocates of marriage in spite of their repetition of the word.

But why? Why can these people not be carelessly framed with not just a caricature of their views but with an outright contradiction of their views? Let me say it plainly: it is because these other people and groups are clearly on the record regarding what they believe. Publicly, openly, often: they say exactly what they mean, they do not apologize for it, and they are categorically militant to say what they are in favor of and are not merely and glibly chanting slogans about what they are against.

“But Frank,” says the politically-conservative reader who has stumbled onto this blog post, “how can you say that? Aren’t the proponents of Prop 8 and like legislation clearly for the union of one man and one woman? Don’t they say that often enough?”

My answer, unequivocally, is:

NO.

There are very few problems in the church that make me this angry, but this one is in the top 3. See: this is why Ms. Miller can say exegetically- and theologically- ludicrous things about what “Christian” religious conservatives want. Religious conservatives don’t really know what they want, or how to get it. And frankly, they have effaced their own position so badly in this case, it is no wonder we can see the head of the hideous monster about to be born cresting behind what they say they want.

What the student of the Bible ought to want in this case is not a social agenda. What the student of Biblical principles here should want is not for the government to force people to one kind of, um, gender entanglement over another.

Here’s why I say that: if the primary need for marriage is a social contract, one which gives me rights over another person, and rights regarding another person’s property so that they do not cheat me or that I am not otherwise cheated, I say plainly: let everyone have that. If that is all, or even principally, what marriage is, then please let every person have that as often as possible and with as many people as possible. Let Government (great “G” intended) protect the rights of each person so that no one is cheated.

But here’s the thing: I think – and historically the church thinks — that marriage is not the social construction of a network of rights – especially the “right” to some emotive or financial state of being appeased. In fact, the church (since it has come up) reads the Bible to mean that marriage is a surrendering of rights first to God and then to another person for manifold theological purposes – that is, a wide variety of purposes which, when acted out, give glory to God.

Marriage is about God. That is, the God who created us out of the dust for a purpose and subordinated to Himself. Marriage is about the Creator of all things and the purpose He made in mankind.

Now, all the people who liked Lisa Miller’s essay are thinking, “he’s going to break into the procreation riff here, and I’m checking out.” But because that is actually going to be my last and most derivative point, you should not check out. You think it’s a crude and dangerous club. Let’s wait a second here and put that purpose in its right place, and see if you still believe that.

The purpose of God in creating mankind is first to show the power of God over all things. The story goes like this:

YHVH-God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

and then God says:

It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.

Man’s purpose in God’s creation is to work and “subdue the Earth” as it says in another place, and God makes woman to help man. That word “helper” there in the Hebrew is later used in the OT almost exclusively to mean the kind of aid only God Himself can provide — as in Psa 115:11, or Psa 124:8.

So God put Adam over all creation, and puts Eve with him as a divinely-given help in order to subdue the Earth. And Jesus – since Jesus’ opinion came up in Ms. Miller’s essay – says this about these events:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That celibate, single Jesus said that – endorsing the story in Genesis not only by saying He believed that’s what happened but in fact by saying those words from Genesis 2 were actually spoken by God. So what we have is not just some human story but God’s very own story-telling, God’s very own words telling us that marriage was made for man and woman, that in marriage they would become one flesh, and that it should never be separated because God made it so.

Marriage is therefore a glorification of God in our obedience, to do a thing the way He said it should be done, and not to treat it – as we do today in our churches – as something which is often abandoned because the other person has become to us not our own flesh, but merely a room-mate or worse: merely a contractor who we can fire when we aren’t satisfied with their work.

And that’s not hardly all. This Paul fellow whom Ms. Miller seems to think held a very low view of marriage didn’t quite receive the husbands and wives in Ephesus as second-string, morally-weak jobbers for the faith. To the men he said this:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Which, sadly, is the most powerful theological statement about human relationships and God in the entire Bible – and our churches treat it like it is some kind of cryptic betrayal of what we ought to stand for.

Yet to the women, Paul said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

And of course, Ms. Miller and Mr. Meacham want none of that – even if they would concede that the man is called to die for the sake of lifting his wife up. How can they admit that submission to a savior is actually a work of right-minded obedience? It would be a fatal betrayal of the godless religion they have tried to advance in their essays.

And in that, let me say for all of them that of course they do not want this kind of marriage, either. A marriage which at its root is a union intended and created by God that glorifies Him by being for the good of mankind – man and woman both – which creates a permanent and unbreakable bond in which one submits to the other, and the other in turn commits even to die for the sake of the first in order to nurture her as his own body – and that this union (here it is now: watch it) is the union where God has ordained to bring more human life into this world — is simply not what the opportunists who chant “gay marriage” want for themselves.

Now, so what? Read the rest of this essay carefully, because it makes two points against both sides of this public argument which ought to give both sides a reason to pause.

“So what?” #1 is this: if the church was serious about this kind of love – which is Christ’s kind of love, first and foremost demonstrated on the Cross for a specific bride in order to make her holy and spotless before God – it wouldn’t abide a social Gospel of nondescript good will or idiotic exhortations about “your best life now”. Listen: often in marriage, you are not on the receiving end of good things but are in fact in the middle of hard doings. And if you expect that your marriage should be about satisfying you instead of sanctifying someone else through sacrifice, you will want to end your marriage in short order – kids and social appearances be damned. And let’s be honest: since divorce in the church looks like divorce in the world – that is, we do it just as often and for all the same reasons – I suspect we think of “marriage” in the same way the world does. So when the world simply wants to make the law look like what we are actually practicing, we have to look in the mirror and admit to ourselves that we are to blame for what the world thinks of marriage.

But my final “so what” here is to Ms. Miller and her tribe of social liberation kin: don’t kid yourself about what you “of course” don’t want. I find it almost incredulously-ironic, as I said above, that when Ms. Miller lists the sins of the OT patriarchs, she overlooks how the Bible describes what these acts were: “every man did what was right in his own eyes,” and “they did what was evil in the sight of YHVH, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done.” It is expecially vexing and darkly funny to see her editor Mr. Meacham appeal to the sacrament of marriage when what he wants isn’t what God has specifically called holy. To appeal to sacrament is to appeal to God’s view of a thing, and to call for a blessing on an invented standard which seems right to a man but ignores or contorts God’s specific prescription for things is exactly the opposite of “sacrament”.

You see: if what you want is the church to bless your social-contract view of marriage, and you admit that this view is about what you want and not about what God has prescribed for you – male, female, for His glory, to your obedience, that you will sacrifice and for the sake of bearing children – you are asking for what you abhor in others, what “of course” we should abhor in the patriarchs described by Moses and the Prophets. Demanding a higher standard from others when one will not abide it himself is called “hypocrisy”, as we all know well and enjoy saying to the poor, ill-advised conservatives who want to do through Government what they cannot do themselves.

The other side, however, is in the far more pitiable position of wanting the government merely to allow them to do what they see in others as rank stupidity and evil. I’m not sure there’s a word for that (the Bible has one — you can find it in Prov 12:1) but if they come up with one that means what I mean, let’s by all means use that word instead. They should own up to what they are asking for, but please do not call it “marriage”.

Stop asking for “marriage”. You don’t want marriage but a way to make other people put their blessing on your life and choices; you want them to call your values “holy” when you can’t even say where they came from. I say you should have what you want here – because frankly you deserve what you are asking for, and that is not a compliment.

We are at fault here: we have taught you that marriage is a cheap thing which is easily made and easily unmade, and that it is about the pursuit of happiness. Shame on us for teaching you such a thing — may God have mercy on us for it; let us repent for making marriage about human urges and rights. But if we are willing to stand corrected — because of course nobody should want such a thing as you have asked for, a thing like the sinners of the Old Testament have done — you yourselves should change your minds. May God grant mercy that you, too, will stand corrected and you will repent of your offense against Him.

______________________________________________

Joel and Victoria Osteen on the Current the Economic Crisis

Posted by Dan C. on

“Life Coach” Joel Osteen and his wife speak out on Larry King Live, providing mostly that same sound advice you could get from any good motivational speaker with an occasional “Christian” cliche about using YOUR faith or how “God will see you through”. Even when Larry King served up opportunities for the Osteens to inject sound doctrine or take a solid stand on Scripture, they smilingly dodged the challenges. You can see a clip here. 

With the size of the ‘congregation’ at their ‘church’, one might wonder the impact for the Gospel Osteen could have if his ‘sermons’ actually contained the substance of the Gospel and sound Biblical doctrine!

Signs of the Times?

Posted by Dan C. on

“No signs can be more alarming than the growing infidelity and worldliness which I see among those who call themselves Christians. Does this nation really intend to cast off the fear of God and the doctrines of Holy Scripture to follow the vain imaginings of the sophists and the fashionable follies of the great? Are we to see again unbelief and luxurious sin walking hand in hand? If so, there be some of us who mean to take up our sorrowful parable, and speak as plainly as we can for truth and holiness, whether we offend or please. Be it ours still to thunder out the law of God, and proclaim with trumpet clearness the gospel of Jesus, not batting one jot of firm belief in the revelation of God, nor winking at sin, nor toning down truth, even though we fear that the only result will be to make this people’s hearts gross, and their ears heavy, and their eyes blind.” – Charles Spurgeon, 1885

Conversation with Paul Washer

Posted by Dan C. on

Just listened to this and needed to share it.  The same themes that are central to Paul Washer’s preaching are contained in this short video clip, albeit on a softer, but not less passionate, note.

The comments he shared concerning the impact of personally searching the scriptures is especially poignant. I am hard pressed to find a difference between previously believed things about God, Christ, and the Gospel and what I believe today that have not been the result of reading the Bible and receiving, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the truth presented plainly within its inspired text.

"Unconditional Acceptance" – Evangelicalism’s Deadly Addiction

Posted by Dan C. on

Dr. Paul Brownback, in his Evangelical Reformation blog, offered these words in a blogpost found here:

“. . .it seems that every society adopts its own gods. The Canaanites chose Baal, the Europeans, after rejecting Christianity, opted for philosophy. Americans, in our post-Christian pagan state have deified psychology.

As Isaiah demonstrates so graphically, idolatry is idiotic, making fools out of its followers. Philosophy has made fools out of intellectual Europeans. Psychology is doing likewise for Americans.

(Carl) Rogers taught that we optimize ourselves as human beings by accepting ourselves unconditionally, i.e. feeling good about ourselves regardless of how bad we live. A bad self-image is the ultimate disease and unconditional self-acceptance is the cure.

However, we can only accept ourselves unconditionally if significant others accept us unconditionally. This means that allowing our kids to do their own thing will not turn them into unbridled hedonists, but will make them into psychological saints—wholesome, actualized individuals.

This belief that unconditional acceptance fixes broken people and makes them into the persons they were meant to be dovetails beautifully with the gospel denuded of repentance, described in the past two postings.

In the absence of repentance, the gospel is reduced to unconditional acceptance. Though this is an unbiblical message, in our culture shaped by the psychology of Carl Rogers it feels right.

Rogers taught us that unconditional acceptance provides the power to change and grow. The gospel stripped of repentance seems to be saying the God agrees. It seems the grace is synonymous with is unconditional acceptance. Salvation comes through a realization that God accepts me “just as I am.”

Change comes, not from repentance, but from this realization that God accepts me apart from any intent to change—even though I am living with my girlfriend, watching pornography, and smoking pot. As I experience God’s grace, His unconditional acceptance, I change will come spontaneously.

This is a life-changing gospel in the sense that it gives people freedom from guilt without change of lifestyle—sort of like spiritual Paxil offered free at your church pharmacy. This is not a biblical gospel and, as George Barna has demonstrated, the promised change in behavior is not occurring.

However, evangelicals are hooked on the message because it is extremely comfortable, fits well with secular culture, and sells well.”

Some time ago I was involved in a small group bible study and actually ended up the study facilitator. The material provided was from a leading evangelical ‘apologist who is know for his work with teenagers and young adults. I found myself dealing with the philosophy of “unconditional acceptance” as the core of the author’s “relational apologetic”. I became concerned when I couldn’t find the concept of “unconditional acceptance” in scripture and decided to research it’s origin. What I found was exactly what Dr. Brownback expressed in his blogpost – that it was developed and articulated in the field of human psychology and became enormously popularity thanks to Carl Rogers in the mid 50s. The study became an excellent opportunity for critical analysis in light of scripture and proved to be very profitable for the members of the group.

God’ “unconditional acceptance” has become so entrenched in today’s evangelicalism that there are many professing believers that have never heard anything other than the lie that God accepts us just the way we are. Not only has believing the lie resulted in countless false conversions, it has resulted in a disdain for critical thinking and the labeling of believers who would dare challenge scripturally unsound teaching or opinions, as legalistic Pharisees. The ever self-congratulatory “what does this verse mean to you” bible scholars don’t allow that which is not intentionally uplifting and encouraging. That which is critical of, or that might challenge another person’s “insight” or faulty interpretation of biblical text, is deemed unkind and “unaccepting” – contrary to God’s very character!

There is a cure for the “addiction”. Wherever pop-psychology has supplanted sound doctrine, get rid of the junk and embrace scriptural truth. How do we do that? For the believer it begins with personally reading a sound interpretation of the Bible. The indwelling Holy Spirit, our ‘instructor in residence’ will take care of the rest.

Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?

Posted by Dan C. on

The Christmas season, and especially the big day itself, evokes all sorts of thoughts and feelings ranging from the purely secular to the intensely religious. Regardless of the actual date of Christ’s birth, or how we ended up having a holiday to celebrate that birth, it IS the reason for the season.

Our thoughts of Christ’s birth are filled with nativity scenes, angels making announcements, wise men following a star, peace on earth and good will toward men. During the Christmas season, most of us become kinder toward family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and complete strangers. We might send a larger donation to our favorite charity, or volunteer to serve at a local soup kitchen or homeless shelter. After all, God gave us His Son so we should give more to others and do our little bit to make our world a more peaceful place.

In the midst of all these wonderful thoughts, I wonder how often we think about the ‘rest of the story’, as Paul Harvey would say. While we might speak of Christ coming to earth to die for sin, how often do we consider that He came for that very purpose, that he came to die. The Father sent His own Son to earth on a mission to die – for OUR sin.

Php 2:6-8 tells us this about Jesus:

“. . .who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

That Christ would die for our sins was in the mind of God before creation. At some point in His human life Jesus also realized His mission and ‘set His face toward Jerusalem’ and the very cross upon which He would die. During His life, Jesus spoke often about His destiny, along with his resolute obedience to the Father’s will. Many to who He spoke would not really understand until later, after the Holy Spirit came and brought clarity and understanding.

I am not saying that to focus primarily on the birth of the Christ Child is somehow wrong. I am merely drawing attention to ‘rest of the story’ that is at times forgotten or set aside, and encouraging anyone reading this to take advantage of the many opportunities to not only share the real meaning of Christmas being Christ’s birth, but to also include ‘the rest of the story’ in that sharing.

May you all celebrate a wonderful and meaningful Christmas as you share the precious Gospel!

Should You Invite Jesus Into Your Heart?

Posted by Dan C. on

An article by By Jim Eliff

Is it useful to critique any person’s or ministry’s method of evangelism? For one thing, there are not enough people calling on others to follow Christ. Should I attempt to cripple their efforts in the slightest way, even for the few who might listen to me? I hope I will not. I would rather think that I’m improving our evangelism. And it does need improving. 

The apparent results of the method of evangelistic appeal built upon the verse in question (John 1:12, along with Rev. 3:20) surely cannot be argued with. I think I could say with ease that almost all the evangelistic results coming out of America are rooted in a method that emerges from the problematic view of John 1:12 which I will unfold. One campus organization whose workers almost always use this verse, with what I believe is an errant understanding of it, claims that tens of thousands are won to Christ each year through their multiple worldwide ministries. I’ve known many involved in this ministry, and can attest to the sincerity of these workers, and their willingness to be bold for Christ. Surely the majority of evangelistic workers cannot be wrong. Surely pastors who have taught this particular view cannot be in error.  At least from the ad hominem side of the argument, I’m going to look pretty silly if I’m opposing such faithful people and am in error myself. So, I’ll tread gently. I’m talking to friends who care as strongly as I do about good evangelism.

Since I have, in the past, made much use of John 1:12 with what I consider a wrong interpretation of it, I think I have the right to speak openly about how I see it now. I have watched as scores of people have responded positively to my wrong use of this verse over several years of my earlier ministry. There is something haunting about that. I asked them to do what I assumed this verse was calling for, and they did it. In earlier days, one motivation for abandoning this concept had to do with observing that so many of my converts coming through the wrong use of John 1:12 appeared to be false converts. I could not live comfortably with that.

I hope you understand me when I say that I also “miss” this verse as a mainstay evangelistic tool. The old way was easier, produced what appeared to be more instant results, received the approbation of almost all my friends, and called forth many colorful illustrations to support it. As soon as I understood the verse in another light, I lost my main conceptual weapon. It took some time to work out how I was going to present the gospel from then on.

A Look at the Verse in Context

I haven’t told you the concept many wrongly derive from this verse. I’ll do so after I quote the verse in its context (1:11-13).

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

What is the wrong use of John 1:12 that I’ve been alluding to? It has to do with the use of the word “receive” which is taken to mean that an unconverted person is to “ask Jesus into his heart” as the invitation of the gospel. The wrong use of this word, in tandem with Revelation 3:20 (“Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man opens the door . . .”) has shaped Western evangelism (and beyond), making our evangelism look a lot different than the apostles.

What then is this verse, with its surrounding context, actually saying?

1. First, it declares that the world, and Jews in particular, were blind to Jesus. They did not understand who He was. They did not know Him even though He created them all. On their own, they were incapable of perceiving who Christ was. They did not “receive” or “welcome” or “accept” or “properly acknowledge” Him. Although a full blown doctrine of depravity is not taught here, it is implied because of the universality of their rejection of Christ apart from the special case John will mention.

2. Second, it teaches us that some people, regardless of the general blindness, do have the power (or actual right) to become children of God. It is those who receive Him. That is, it is those who welcome, accept, or favorably acknowledge Him. So, in the midst of general rejection there are some who receive. This word “receive” does not mean “those who invite Christ into their hearts” but rather those who welcome Him for who He is, truly God. A simple comparison with the word “receive” in verse 11 and in verse 12 will yield that this word could not possibly have the meaning of inviting Christ in, as is commonly used by Western evangelism. Here is the error that has spawned much confusion in evangelism.

3. Third, it teaches that reception of Jesus must be qualified further. In other words, not mere welcoming of Christ is enough, but those who receive must believe, “even to those who believe in His name.” There are two ways to take this. John might mean that this “receiving” is the same as “believing.” In other words, the two words could be used interchangeably. Or, John may be saying that reception of Christ must include faith. It would be as if John is saying, “Those who receive him have the right to become his children, but I mean receiving plus true believing or faith.” Either nuance leads us ultimately to faith. We know that faith is more than the mere reception of Christ in truth, or as He is actually. That is its beginning. But it is more. It is reliance upon the Christ who came into the world on His intended mission, to die for us. Those who believe (which starts with their welcoming of Him) have the right of sonship.

4. Fourth, the child of God experiences something beyond (and I contend, before) his faith. God, in other words, is doing something to make him a child of His that could not be done simply on man’s initiative. In fact, these people’s sonship has nothing to do with bloodline, human decision, or the will of others on his behalf. When John says that a person must receive and believe, yet his birth into the family has nothing to do with blood, human decision or the will of another, then he is acknowledging something mysterious and profound. Salvation, as much as we would like to say otherwise, cannot be ultimately attributed to man in any way even in his believing, but is an act of God first of all.

Verse 13 may convey the idea that the order for attaining sonship begins with the birth (“who were born,” emphasis mine) which results in the faith that is said to be necessary for sonship. (“those who believe in His name, who were born . . . of God”). If this order is correct, we can say that regeneration, at least in a kind of philosophical order, precedes faith. If we do not say this, we would have to say John is teaching that it is at least concurrent to a man’s faith. While the man is believing, he is being born; while he is being born, he is believing. But since John asserts that “human decision” could not initiate this birth necessary to be a child, it appears that placing it before the exercise of the will in belief is the right way to view the chronology.

Where Does This Leave Us?

Modern evangelism almost never recognizes verse 11 and verse 13 of the passage, and therefore uses verse 12 persistently and wrongly. By not recognizing verse 11, it fails to understand “receive” correctly, leading to all kinds of problems. Because modern evangelism fails to think of verse 13, we see less than adequate dependence on God and acknowledgment of God as the author of salvation. That may explain, in part, why so much pride can be found in evangelism.

The idea that receiving means “inviting Christ into the heart” causes huge problems for us. It is an easy concept to convey, granted. I used to say that I would never talk to people about believing in Christ, which has difficulties in explanation because of varied levels of meaning, but would only use the idea of “inviting Christ in.” Even a child can get that. But, when the Scriptures as a whole do not support this idea, am I free to make my wrong concept the centerpiece of the response to the gospel? Other than Revelation 3:20, also misunderstood, no place in the Bible appears to promote this idea of “inviting Christ into the heart.” Over 500 times the idea of belief in Christ is expressed, but no mention is made of “inviting Christ in.” Ninety-eight times “belief” and its various forms are used in the evangelistic book of John. We grant that many times the idea of faith is spoken of in the light of the Christian’s walk, but many other times faith is discussed in terms of the initial entrance into God’s family.

When we use the concept of “inviting Christ into the heart” we are robbing faith of its richness. Salvation is reduced to an act more than a life. There is no formulaic prayer (“I now invite you into my heart”) that automatically saves. A man can only be saved through faith. Though we talk about something called “the sinner’s prayer,” it is not found in the Bible. You will have to go to the booklets that promote the idea of “inviting Christ in” to find such a prayer. Think of how much evangelism you have been exposed to rests on the idea that such a prayer be prayed before a person could be saved.

When the Bible speaks of calling on the name of the Lord, it might mean something like evoking Christ’s name in order to be received by God—a sound concept. But regardless what you might think about the wisdom of using a prayer for becoming a child of God, it could not be ultimately necessary. It is certainly only ancillary at best. It is “belief in Christ” that is held out to be the link between the lost man and Christ as seen in so many commands and experiences in the Bible. Paul and Peter did not say, “repeat this prayer after me” at the end of their messages. Rather, people heard and believed, most often during their preaching of the gospel. Granted, some may have prayed as a way to express their faith (though we don’t have records of such outside of Luke 18:13, a prayer unlike the typical “sinner’s prayer”), but such a prayer could not be said to be required by the apostles or God.

Some who doubt their salvation have stated (I have heard this many times myself) that they must surely not be a true Christian because “I did not ask Jesus into my heart.” They would do far better by examining the faith they say they have. They would do better than that by examining for the evidence of life within the soul; and perhaps better than that by looking away from themselves to Christ first, then figuring out when they first believed.

Here is what we should do:

1. We should forever bury the idea of “inviting Christ into the life.” Even if two verses could be interpreted to say that this is a possibility, the sheer number of other verses plainly stating that belief in Christ is the gospel invitation, should lead us to abandon the concept in almost every case. I know that Christ is in the believer, but the believer is also in Christ. The second concept may be mentioned in the New Testament more than the first, but we don’t have people pray to get in Christ? No, we must tell them to believe. We mean a repenting belief and a belief that affects our life from then on.

2. We should abandon the “praying the prayer” method for our appeal. You may pray for people, and even with people, but do not even intimate that praying a certain prayer saves. It does not. No prayer automatically forces God to receive a sinner. God is personal and is sought and talked to, I grant. But when we are asked what He expects, it is to be stated that God demands that we believe. “Do so and live!” Again, by “believe” we are meaning more than just acknowledgment of Christ; no, we mean trust in Christ and what He has done for sinners, a transfer of trust that affects our lives and behavior forever.

3. We should use the biblical terminology of “belief” in Christ. There are other ways of expressing this found in the NT, but “belief” is consistently displayed as the essence of our response. I will not list verses here, but nothing could be easier to find in the New Testament. Read John to see this repeated scores of times. Or read through Acts with this in mind. Ask, “What did the apostles expect people to do in response to their message?” Remember that the booklets give you verse after verse about belief, and then, at the end of the presentation, make a bee-line to John 1:12 and Revelation 3:20, wrongly interpreted. They finalize the deal with a formulaic prayer. Don’t follow that pattern any longer. It is enough to instruct people to believe in Christ, with a sound repenting faith.

4. We should also spend far more time talking about the awfulness of sin and the work of Christ for sinners. Our main work is not so much to explain the sinner’s response to Christ (that is important mainly for pretending believers), but to labor on the gospel itself. When we are brutally honest with people about their sin, and lucid about the only answer being in Christ, His death and resurrection, then we have preached the gospel. We have done what is necessary to cooperate with the Spirit in their conversion. We will actually work against the Spirit when we get caught up in a formulaic approach to the gospel as opposed to a content-filled proclamation. Get the message right and depend on God to convict and convert. You will know someone is saved, not when they “pray the prayer,” but when they repent and believe in Christ, with the evidence of truly following Him. Ask, “Do you believe?”

If We Continue

If we continue with the current pattern of evangelism, we will persist in seeing the results that such a pattern automatically brings. That is, we will see people who sincerely pray a little prayer who have, for the most part, not really believed in Christ. Now, we will always experience fallout on some level even if we are true to the biblical words, for even Jesus had his false converts, as did Paul and the others. This explains why so often the New Testament says, “Do not be deceived.” Yet, when we promote the idea that praying a pray, inviting Christ in, or receiving Christ, is what God requires, we augment the problem, producing massive numbers of unbelieving “believers.” We will continue to have far more tares than wheat. Who would not want to change that sad reality?

I’m embarrassed at my paltry manner of explaining what I’m trying to help us see. But perhaps you will be able to take these concepts further. At a minimum, I’m calling for a purer evangelism, regulated by the Bible and not by ease or history or practicality. Do not back down in your fervor, but use the right method. It stands to reason, even if numbers are smaller, that more true converts will come from good methodology. I know that God ultimately saves, and that He can use anything He wishes to do, but surely we are right to continually purify our evangelism for His glory.

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

_____________________

Comments, anyone?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Posted by Dan C. on

This isn’t really about eggs and chickens, but you probably already figured that out. Rather, it concerns a similar question: What happens first, our choosing to follow Christ or regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Does God respond to a decision we make and as a result of our choosing Christ, or must we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we even sincerely choose Christ. By ‘sincerely’ choose Christ we mean that we have honestly face our sinful condition, recognize God’s solution, repent of our sin and trust in Christ.

Anyone who has read this blog already knows this writer’s personal opinion on the matter, but it’s an issue worth revisiting on occasion. The occasion that prompted these remarks was a comment on another blog post that was addressed to a fellow who admittedly has not trusted Christ. the comment read:  “…faith comes when we take the first step, not before.”  In other words, the writer of that comment was asserting that in response to our ‘first step’ toward God, we are given faith to believe.

The sequence of ‘events’ in this important issue has been termed ‘the order of salvation’, or the Ordo Salutis, found in Romans 8:29-30. The question concerning the ‘when’ of regeneration was asked at Reformation Theology and received a well thought out and excellent response:

Visitor: I have a question regarding the order of salvation. I realize that you have to be regenerated before you can believe, so the question I am asking is regeneration the same as being born again? If so were does repentance fall into place? Before or after justification, then what about sanctification and so on? I have read some articles on the site and have probably missed it, so I will appreciate you taking the time to write me back.

Response: Thanks for your great question. Jesus Christ is the source of all redemptive blessings, including regeneration, justification, sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Regeneration is the fountain, and sanctification the river. In other words, when one is united to Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, our hearts of stone are made flesh, our blind eyes now see and our deaf ears now hear. All things, obedience, repentance, faith spring forth from the regenerating work of the Spirit within us. They all happen simultaneously once God breathes new life into us.

I would suspect, however, that if we are to use logic, faith must come before repentance, for how can you repent if you don’t know what you are repenting of. Yet these are all so close that it would be difficult to say. The Spirit, in working faith in us also reveals our spiritual bankruptcy and a repentance of all trust in our own self-sufficiency. In order to have genuine faith anyone who believe must recognize that we justly deserve the wrath of God save for Christ’s mercy alone. We abandon all confidence in self and repent of all trust in our own works, good and bad. Neither are our savior. Christ alone is sufficient to save. So ultimately you could say that genuine faith is a repentant faith. Hope this helps.

Scripture is clear on the matter. Our salvation is a work of God, from beginning to end:

Rom 8:29  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (ESV)

Even our future glorification was determined in eternity past. You can surmise that regeneration and the expression of genuine faith in Christ are integral in the ‘calling’. As Ephesians 2 tells us, we who now claim Christ were one spiritually DEAD in sin. Dead is dead. In order for us to take any sort of step toward God, we had to be ‘raised’ from the dead. That regeneration comes before our choosing should, in terms of simple logic, be crystal clear.