Category Archives: theology

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three

Posted on by

This is the third part in a series explaining my position on the first chapter of Genesis. I believe the six days of creation are meant to be taken as a framework showing how God made the earth habitable and inhabited. You can read about the literary view of creation (part one) and the objections by the literalists (part two) here and here before reading my final conclusions presented in this third part.

THE RESPONSE

Let me summarize the four basic problems that literalists have with the literary view of the days of creation (which I brought up in part two of this series): 1. They believe the motive for the framework hypothesis is a desire to reconcile science and the Bible and not from pure exegetical discipline. 2. They believe it is inconsistent with Church tradition. 3. They believe the simplest reading of the days in Genesis should be understood as 24-hour units of time. 4. They believe the figurative nature of the seventh day would lead to a rejection of the fourth commandment and a belief that we can interpret the Bible any way we like. Each of these are serious objections so let me answer them seriously but briefly.

For the most part, the discussion about science has distracted us from the true beauty of the story of creation. To suggest that the framework hypothesis is just an attempt to marry modern philosophies and sciences together with the Bible is false. However, it is not too much to assume that at times God’s natural revelation will confirm and coincide with His special revelation. Henri Blocher says, “The sciences will stimulate the interpreter from without, driving him to verify his exegesis and test the evidence, or encouraging him by favorable convergences which bear witness to the common origin of the two Books of God [general and special revelation].”(17)  After all, this interpretation isn’t new. “Augustine predated the rise of modern evolution by fourteen centuries…his professed reasons for taking the days nonliterally were strictly exegetical.”(18)  Ridderbos concludes, “Therefore the situation is this that though natural science may at no point decree how Scripture should be interpreted, the views it proposes may occasion the question whether what we believed should and could be derived from Scripture is in fact teaching and whether we must not exegete the relevant Scriptural data in some other way.” (19)  When our exegesis is called into question by our modern observations, it is not an unworthy endeavor to study again the pertinent texts of our faith.

Second, the literalists argue that the literary view is inconsistent with Church tradition. That assertion is untrue and irrelevant. Ridderbos says, “There are interpreters who believe that the arrangement of seven days is intended as a literary form. This view was already current in the early Church (Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine).”(20)  But this argument isn’t even relevant. The point is not to determine the who’s who of each position but to determine what the text actually says. We don’t cast aside church tradition but it is possible for our understanding of God’s Word to change as new light is shed on the subject. In Iron’s response to the rebuke from Duncan and Hall, he says, “Ironically, Duncan and Hall, who have accused us of engaging in exegesis motivated by outside factors (what they call ‘scientific eisegesis’), themselves engage in a type of exegesis driven by the outside factor of Church tradition.”(21)  Again, church tradition is important and we are “standing on the shoulders of giants”. As a result, we can see much farther into the text than we could if we didn’t have such men and women of faith going before us. But if we are to call the framework hypothesis “scientific eisegesis” then we must apply the same to those who boldly declared that the earth was round and later, to those who believed that the earth revolves around the sun.

Third, literalists argue that the simplest understanding of the word day means a literal 24-hour day. But are we to then believe that the week must be taken literally? As Hugenberger points out “A week is an unnatural (not earthly) unit of time.” (22)  The day is marked by the earth’s revolution, a month is marked by the movement of the moon and a year is marked by the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Where did we get the week? Besides, it is not unprecedented for the Bible to use figurative language. In fact, what makes a metaphor successful is precisely that we know what it actually means. Lee Irons uses the metaphor of the fox for Herod in Luke 13. There isn’t another meaning for the word “fox”, we know exactly what Jesus means when He refers to Herod as a fox because we know the characteristics of an actual fox. Day is used to demarcate the framework that indicates the activity of a creating God.

Finally, the seventh day in Genesis can be seen as figurative without believing that we should abandon the fourth commandment or consider the story of the Fall to be figurative. According to Noordtzij, “the six days of Genesis 1 are obviously intended as the sum of two triduums which consequently reveal a clearly pronounced parallelism, while the total arrangement is intended to place in bold relief the surpassing glory of man who attains his true destiny in the Sabbath…Given this plan of the creation account we may infer meanwhile that the author consciously used days and nights, evenings and mornings, as a literary framework.”(23)  Ridderbos says, “Does the author mean to say that God completed creation in six days, or does he make use of an anthropomorphic mode of presentation? Did he arrange the works of God in a given scheme (as Von Rad, for instance, has it), or a framework (as Noordtzij has it)? I may refer at this point to Genesis 2:7 and 3:21. Does the author mean to say there that God acted as a potter and as a maker of furclothes? These surely are anthropomorphic expressions. Another anthropomorphism is the saying in Genesis 2:2 that God rested; one may not infer from it that God had to exert Himself to create the world.”(24)  Lee and Kline refer to all the other nonliteral uses of the Sabbath and the number 7 in Scripture, referring to the 70 years of captivity (actually 66 or 67), the seventy “weeks” in Daniel (actually longer than 490 years) and the three uses of 14 in the genealogies of Matthew to indicate that the generation of the Messiah (some names were intentionally dropped so that there would be three sections of 14). Irons writes, “Use of the Sabbath concept to provide a literary scheme for conceptualizing redemptive history is a major feature of Scripture.”(25)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the framework hypothesis has merit on exegetical grounds. On the other hand, the 24-hour day view has a lot to explain. It cannot maintain its consistency. Either the day in Genesis 1 is an ordinary day and God used extraordinary means to give light on Day 1 and sustain vegetation on Day 3, or, the story is constructed in a framework that helps us see how God made the earth inhabitable and inhabited. The framework hypothesis is not merely a recent invention contrived by the fear that science will be proved right and God to be wrong. Rather, that God, being the Author of both has given us an account of His work to create. Even Calvin, in his refutation of the figurative or literary view, at least recognizes the presence of the framework. Rather than reject the framework hypothesis, modern interpreters should survey the evidence to see if it can stand. As for me, I believe the weight of the evidence falls to a literary interpretation and that the author employed a framework to articulate divine truths to his audience.

After reading part one, two and three of this series, what are your thoughts on the framework hypothesis?

[17] Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984) 27.

[18] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[19] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 20-21.

[20] Ibid. 11.

[21] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[22] Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

[23] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 11.

[24] Ibid. 30.

[25] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 227.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two

Posted on by

Was Genesis 0ne intended to be a literal account of creation? Or are the six days a literary framework helping us to see God’s power in creating the universe? I’ve got my own problems with the theory of evolution and I have no doubts that God is our Creator so I want to fairly represent the literal side of things in this 3 part series. Check out part one here.

THE OBJECTIONS

So how do we arrive at a figurative interpretation of the word ‘day’ when the simplest reading is so straightforward? After all, “The 24-hour view holds that God created the universe and all life in six sequential natural days marked by evenings and mornings. According to this view, God created the universe and all life in approximately 144 hours and in the sequence presented in Genesis 1.”(1) That seems to be the easiest way to interpret the text at first glance. Most holding this literal view are very firm in their convictions. Duncan and Hall, for example, before defending their theory, claim, “As we shall see, the intent of the author of Genesis 1-2 as to the nature of the creation days is so apparent that it is, frankly, beyond dispute.”(2) They continue, “Compelling exegetical evidence for reading the creation days as anything other than normal days is lacking.”(3)

However, theirs and many other literalists fall short in their refutation of the framework hypothesis. To begin with, many literalists start by attacking the motives of the proponents of the framework hypothesis. They suggest that the literary view arose out of a need to reconcile science and the Bible. A review of Hugh Ross’s book “The Genesis Question” by Publisher’s Weekly said, “Thus, [Ross] says, God’s creative activity can be substantiated by physical science. Ross has a faithful following who will welcome this book. Others may wonder why he is trying so hard to turn faith into science.”(4) Coming from a secular publisher, it’s amusing that it tends to be the literalists who try so hard to confront matters of science while the proponents of the framework hypothesis have been carefully exegeting the text for decades.

Secondly, literalists tend to attack the theory, not on exegetical grounds, but by stating that it is not consistent with Church tradition. Duncan and Hall said, “Most of the great interpreters of the Church have construed the creation days as normal days.”(5) Even those like James Barr would agree, “So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers…that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”(6) No one wants to diminish the record of Church history but there are times when new light is shed on a subject. Besides, Barr’s hyperbole is simply not true. Theologians both historical and contemporary have found wisdom in understanding the 24 hour solar days as figurative.

When they finally confront the text, the argument falls flat. Literalists suggest that the days cannot be literary devices because they refer to normal days. The use of “evening and morning”, and the chronological use of “then” that begins each day and the “first day, second day,” language causes them to think these are normal solar days. Duncan and Hall said, “Calvin insists that the creation week was not merely a didactic tool or framework the Lord employed to reveal Himself intelligibly to His finite creatures. Rather, God actually performed His work of creation in an ordinary week out of love for His people, who could identify with the cycle of days.”(7) Rather than respond directly to the substance of Calvin’s statement at this point, suffice it to say that at least he sees the framework even if he believes God literally was bound by it.

Finally, the figurative view of the seventh day is disturbing to the literalist. They believe that the figurative view weakens the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. If the Sabbath is figurative, then why take the commandments literally? In fact, why take the story of Adam and Eve literally? Their view is that if we take Genesis 1 figuratively then the whole of Scripture is called into question.

For the most part, literalists stay away from defending their position on exegetical grounds and yet reject the framework hypothesis on those very grounds…ones which they seem unwilling or unable to articulate. Throughout my research, I found no satisfactory defense of the 24-hour view in light of modern exegetical discoveries. This is not a bias based on scientific discoveries of the past 200 years, it is a bias for the truth of God’s Ancient Word.

So the main arguments against the framework hypothesis are summarized as follows:

  1. The text uses concrete language, therefore it must be taken literally; (this is the only argument based on exegetical grounds and it seems very weak in my opinion. I would suggest the exact opposite, that the language of Genesis one seems highly figurative and uses something known – a 24 hour day – to provide a framework for something previously unknown.)
  2. Those who believe Genesis one is a framework for creation are simply compromising due to pressure from the scientific community; (Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem? For me, evolution could be conclusively proven or disproven tomorrow and I would still believe Genesis one is figurative.)
  3. Church tradition has largely supported literal 24 hour solar days; (Logical fallacy: Appeal to Tradition? My question: Has it? Did church tradition hold to a flat earth or that the sun revolved around the earth?)
  4. If Genesis one isn’t literal then why should we take the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy literally? Why should we take the story of Adam and Eve’s Fall literally? Etc. (Logical fallacy: Sweeping Generalization? It may be figurative but it is still theology and it is still teaching us something about God’s values and how we should live.)

What do you think? Do these arguments hold water? Do you have other thoughts for or against the framework hypothesis? How do you answer these objections (or contribute to them)? Part Three will be about my own response to these four issues.

1 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 16.

2 Ibid. 23.

3 Ibid. 23.

4 Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Question-Scientific-Advances-Accuracy/dp/1576832309/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs (accessed December 13, 2008)

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 29.

6 Ibid. 23.

7 Ibid. 29.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part One

Posted on by

This was a position paper that I presented for one of my theology classes in seminary. Note that it is a position paper, not a research paper. As a result, this is not a thorough treatment of the subject, but just a summary of why I hold the theological position that I do.

For most conservative evangelicals, anything other than a literal, sequential, 24-hour solar day is incomprehensible. Arguing that the simplest reading must be correct and that a literary or figurative view of the days in Genesis bows to modern science. Having held, studied, and supported the literal view of the days in Genesis 1 for most of my life, I understand the arguments and the concerns of those who take the word “day” literally. However, I have recently become convinced that Genesis 1 provides a framework, rather than a literal six day creation week. This shift in my thinking didn’t come from any scientific discovery or because I wanted to fit in with my friends who happen to be scientists that are Christians. Instead, after hearing several lectures on the exegesis of the first few chapters of Genesis in the larger context of the Pentateuch, I now hold to, study and support the literary view of the days in Genesis 1.

THE LITERARY VIEW

The literary view of the creation account has taken many forms throughout history. The best expression today is found in the framework hypothesis. The framework hypothesis states that the inspired author of Genesis offers us a story (or “saga”(1) as Barth would have it) of creation. He does not intend, however, to report the exact details of that event that would satisfy our naturally scientific and curious minds. Instead, his goal is to impress upon the reader that all that exists has been created by God. He does this by placing the eightfold work of creation into a framework of six days. The seventh day, then, is the day of rest, which encourages humanity to celebrate the Sabbath as our act of worship and as our imitation of God.(2) The framework that the author employs is not arbitrary. It is logical, not chronological in sequence. Therefore, the two main characteristics of the framework hypothesis is that it is nonliteral and nonsequential.

The problem is that such seemingly nonliteral phrases like “evening and morning”, “the first day”, and “then God said” are characteristic of the text. In fact, the main difficulty comes from the use of the word “day”. Karl Barth says, “At this point the saga tells us something very noteworthy: namely this, that God created also time and our time at that…and hence, concretely: time in its unity (day) and time in its coherence (week), and that he created in this manner that to the light he gave the name day.”(3) N. H. Ridderbos says “One must take seriously the possibility that the account of creation in six days is no more than a mode of presentation.”(4) It’s important to note, however, that this “mode of presentation” is not contradicting the historicity of the act of creation. Lee Irons writes, “We do not equate a nonliteral interpretation with a nonhistorical interpretation of the text.”(5)

A more detailed look at the days of creation might be helpful at this point. Ridderbos writes, “There is mention of eight works of creation. Four of these take place in the first triduum, and four in the second. Two works each are associated with the third and the sixth day.”(6) In order to understand the reason for the “triduums” or framework, we have to consider verse 2. Gordon  Hugenberger translates the text, “Now the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited.”(7) As a result, the first three days show how God makes the land habitable and then makes the land to be inhabited. As was stated earlier, on the seventh day, God sets an example for humanity in that He rests from His creative activity. This is not to assume that we must literally believe that God needs to physically rest. Instead, Meredith Kline says, “God created the heaven and the earth to be his cosmic palace and accordingly his resting is an occupying of his palace, a royal session…Hebrews 4, Israel’s dominion-rest in Canaan…is expressly interpreted in terms of the Creator’s seventh day rest.”(8) According to Kline, and to the framework hypothesis, the seventh day is still happening. We are currently in the “seventh day” figuratively speaking because the seventh day was meant to be understood figuratively. Therefore, the days of Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally. To be consistent, we have to make a choice; either the days are literal and God’s rest is figurative, or the whole week is to be taken figuratively.

Advocates of the framework hypothesis also argue that there are several discrepancies in the stories of creation found in 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-25 if you take a literal view of creation. Day 6 would’ve been a very busy day. In addition to the animals, God would’ve created man, Adam would’ve named the animals, and God would’ve created Eve, etc. Not only does the 24 hours of day 6 pose a problem, but the orders are different in the second story. “It has often been said that there is a contrast in the order of the works of creation between Genesis 1 and 2, because Genesis 2 first posits the creation of man, then the plant-world, and last the animals.”(9) Exegetically, then, it seems that the literary view of creation is the best interpretation of the text.

What do you think of the word “day” in Genesis? Do you hold a literal or a literary view of the word? Do you feel that the literary view of creation is simply intending to reconcile science with the Bible or do you feel that the theory has an exegetical leg to stand on? Part Two will talk about the objections to the Framework Hypothesis.

1 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 13-14.

2 Ibid. 45.

3 Ibid. 57.

4 Ibid. 30.

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 220.

6 Ibid. 33.

7 Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

8 Kline, Meredith. Kingdom Prologue (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006) 35.

9 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 25.

Is Jesus Really THE Truth?

Posted on by

The ThinkerI am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
-Jesus

That statement is one of the most controversial and hated statements that Jesus ever made. This quote, and other statements in the Bible lead followers of Jesus to conclude that He is the ONLY way to know God. His Truth is the ONLY Truth. His Life is the ONLY way to live.

In a day when many people believe that truth cannot even be known in the first place, how can followers of Jesus suggest that they are right and others are wrong? Can they really claim that the Bible contains the Truth that will lead to eternal life with God?

There are three criteria that philosophers use to determine the trustworthiness of a statement or proposition. Since Jesus’ words are recorded in the Bible, it’s important to apply these criteria generally to the book as a whole and then return specifically to the statement Jesus made.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth

The Correspondence Theory of truth asks if a statement (or statements) corresponds to external reality. The Bible passes this first test. The Bible is externally consistent. In other words, there are no existing external realities that contradict any of the Bible’s claims – not one!

For example, for hundreds of years people couldn’t understand how Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees in ancient times. Apparently, a town called Ur had been found that didn’t correspond to where the Bible seemed to indicate it should be. No problem, wait a couple of hundred years and someone dug up another town known as Ur of the Chaldees that was precisely where the Bible said it would be.

Or what about science. Sure, people got upset with the whole Galileo/Copernicus fiasco. Some had falsely interpreted the Bible and thought the earth was the center of the universe. Science seemed to be saying that the sun was at the center of our galaxy. How would you interpret, “From the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, the name of the Lord shall be praised.”? Have you ever talked about the sun rising or setting? If you are living in the Dark Ages you might be tempted to think that the sun revolves around the earth, but when you know the truth you see that this verse is written from the author’s perspective and not from a scientific background. Today, we use the same language (does the sun really “set”?) but we know the sun isn’t the one rising or setting, we are the ones revolving around the sun.

The first example from archaeology shows how the Bible has proved accurate through the test of time and supposed inconsistencies have been explained by new discoveries. The second example from astronomy shows how science, archaeology, or history can make our interpretation of Scripture better, but doesn’t contradict anything that has been written. The author wasn’t teaching us a doctrine of geocentricity, he was talking about the worth and glory of God. Again, there is nothing in the Bible that does not correspond to external, tangible reality. Books have been written about the “discoveries” made by the Bible hundreds and thousands of years before geology or astronomy or archaeology got around to officially uncovering them.

The Coherence Theory of Truth

The Coherence Theory of truth asks if the statements being made are internally consistent.

The Bible is a collection of people’s glimpses of God through the ages. It is a compilation of 66 books written by about 40 authors who lived on 3 different continents over a span of about 1600 years using dozens of different literary forms. Somebody is bound to write something that contradicts someone else, right?

However, the Bible passes the coherence theory test. It is breathtakingly consistent internally. Outside of the Bible, I don’t know of TWO people writing in the SAME generation who display the same amount of internal consistency! For example, there’s no debate – by ANY scholar that I’m aware of – that the Old Testament predates the New Testament. Sometimes the books in the OT are over a thousand years older than the NT documents. Yet, the OT contains hundreds of prophecies. If just one of those prophecies proved to be untrue, the reliability of the entire document would be forfeit. Instead, we find that many of those prophecies have been fulfilled and all of them are precise in every way to actual events that happened hundreds of years later. On top of that, the overall theology of the Bible is internally consistent.

As we interpret the Bible, we sometimes disagree with others about various points of doctrine but that’s our fault not the Bible. We look at the Bible with cultural, social, and philosophical lenses that color what’s actually there. Again, our modern mistakes don’t disprove the Bible, it just drives us to be more careful with our interpretation and application of what we’ve been given. Which leads us to the final criteria for determining truth.

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

Finally, there is the Pragmatic Theory of truth. This theory asks if a certain belief or set of beliefs really work. If you apply the truth to your life will it work for you? Again, the Bible passes the test. Incidentally, it could be argued that the world religions pass this test. People seem to be fulfilled in life when they pray to Mecca or help someone in need. Their religious deeds seem to make them happy.

Of course, followers of Jesus know from personal experience that the Bible passes the test because they are living it. We haven’t just taken it out for a test drive, we’ve invested our lives into owning it and driving it to work and to school and to social gatherings. The Bible is the only sacred writing that passes all three tests and it has been proven over and over again. The message of the Bible corresponds with external reality, it’s message is internally coherent and consistent, and it’s practical application brings contentment and joy to the one who trusts that message.

What about Jesus’ Words?

So that brings us back to what Jesus said. We can apply all three of these tests to the Bible generally but we can also apply it specifically to Jesus. Jesus’ path, message, and victory over death are all internally consistent with the broader theme of the Bible. His way, truth, and life all correspond with reality. Those of us who follow His way, heed His truth, and enjoy the abundant life He offers to everyone, recognize the practical implications of doing so: We now have a relationship with the God who caused the earth to revolve around the sun, who spoke to prophets hundreds of years in advance and told them His Son would be born in Bethlehem, and who has given us meaning and purpose and direction in life and has forgiven us for all the times we rejected Him, blasphemed Him, or ignored Him.

It’s ironic that some of the best news that could be heard is often misconstrued as bad news. Jesus didn’t say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” to stick it in your eye. Instead, Jesus is telling us exactly how we can know God and glorify Him and enjoy Him forever. He came in the flesh to prove God’s love for His creation. Jesus isn’t blocking people from knowing God, He’s showing them how they can. He endured torture, shame, and death so that all who believe in Him could know God and enjoy Him forever.

Related Posts: Paths to God ::  One God, Two Gods, Three Gods, No God ::  Subscribe

Please Disregard Wiley Drake's Foolish Remarks!

Posted on by

ImageServerDB “I am glad George Tiller is dead.”

Those words were not uttered by Tiller’s murderer (to my knowledge). Instead, they were uttered by someone who claims to believe in the Bible. They were uttered by a former VP in the Southern Baptist Convention. They were uttered by a pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California. His church must be so proud. They were uttered by Wiley Drake.

Will the real Wiley Drake please sit down!

Who is Wiley Drake? I’ve been to maybe eight or nine Southern Baptist Conventions so I know a little bit about him. At the convention each year, resolutions are voted for or against. Some are good, some are bad, some are crazy.

Since it is a democratic process, anyone, and I do mean ANYONE who is in attendance as an official delegate to the convention from ANY Southern Baptist church around the world, can submit a resolution on the floor of the convention. I’ve heard Wiley Drake’s name for years because he is always proposing some resolution. His resolutions are always from way out in left field.

Though the SBC has been trying to redeem its reputation as a positive force for Biblical values and social justice and care for neighbor, Wiley Drake seems to be stuck in a hyper-fundamentalist funk. As far as the SBC has come in recent years, they still make mistakes. A couple of years ago, for some reason, the SBC voted to make Wiley Drake our 2nd VP of the convention. What?

For Drake to become an official officer of the SBC was amazing. For all those years I remember the following scenario played out many times:

Moderator: “The platform recognizes microphone #3. State your name, church, and resolution.”

Drake: “My name is Wiley Drake…

ALL SBC convention delegates: *sigh* *groan* *oh boy, here we go*

Except seven Drake supporters: *applause* *whistle* *hoot*

Drake: “I’m the pastor and messenger of First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, California.

ALL SBC convention delegates (except those same seven supporters): *collective roll-of-the-eyes*

Drake: “Be it resolved that the SBC and all Bible-believing Christians must overthrow the US government because they don’t know God. Let’s go get our guns people!” (this is a hypothetical example from my own imagination but trust me, the truth is stranger than fiction)

So what did we do? We elected him. WE ELECTED HIM! It was a beautiful strategy (some thought): Now, all of a sudden, for at least one year, Wiley Drake was unable to propose any resolutions because he was an officer of the convention. yeah!

The drawback was that now when he does something controversial and public (those very well may be his core values) he’s referred to in the news as “former Vice President of the 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention”. His title is given as if he speaks for all who call themselves Christian. As Richard Land said of Obama’s election recently, “Elections have consequences.” That was never more true than when the SBC elected Wiley Drake to be an officer of the convention.

So what did he do now?

So why am I talking about this today? Well, there was an Associated Baptist Press article about Drake’s interview with Alan Colmes. Many of his comments are disturbing. Drake had been praying for Tiller’s death because he thought some of the prayers David prays in the Psalms means God wants Tiller dead. Colmes asked him if he prayed those sorts of prayers about anyone else. Drake said, “The usurper that is in the White House is one, B. Hussein Obama.”

Colmes: “Are you praying for his death?”

Drake: “Yes,”

Colmes: “So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?”

Drake: “Yes.”

I want to ask: Are you praying for his salvation? his forgiveness? his family? his policy making? his soul? his redemption?

Here are a few more quotes from the interview: “I think it’s appropriate to pray the Word of God,” Drake said. “I’m not saying anything. What I am doing is repeating what God is saying.”

“I believe the whole Bible, Alan,” he explained. “I don’t just preach part of it. I don’t just preach the soft, fuzzy, warm stuff where we’re supposed to be nice to everybody. I preach the whole Bible.”

Does the Bible really say that?

Let me make a few points in response to Drake’s hate-prayers from the Bible of which he claims to know so well:

Romans 2:4 Do you despise the riches of His kindness, restraint, and patience, not recognizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? (HCSB)

The fact that God doesn’t immediately wipe EVERYONE off the face of the earth is a miracle. Now, why is He holding back? So they might repent and turn to Him.

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (HCSB)

Jesus, for some reason, didn’t act vindictively against those who rejected Him. Maybe it was because of His love. In fact, when they nailed Him to a cross, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Did you get that, “forgive them“. Chances are, Tiller simply didn’t know what he was doing either. So, we pray for people’s souls and for their forgiveness, not for their death.

When someone takes matters into their own hands and murders someone like Tiller, they are taking away the possibility that Tiller might repent, turn from evil, choose good, and follow Christ. That’s why God restrains Himself. Imagine how many people are rejecting God and working against Him, even cursing Him. But does He want them dead? No, He wants them to repent!

Matthew 5:44-45 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (HCSB)

I’m not saying I have any enemies or that we should consider the Tiller’s of the world to be enemies, but what Jesus is saying is that it’s not enough to simply love your friends and family, if you are going to be children of God you have to act like Him and learn how to love everyone. I feel like loving people (not asking God to kill them) is a pretty strong commandment somewhere in the Bible…I’ve definitely heard it somewhere before…oh yeah: Matthew 19:19; 22:37ff, Mark 12:29ff, Luke 10:25ff, 1 John 4:21, Leviticus 19:18, etc.

An enemy of a Christian should receive more love and prayer and forgiveness than the friend of anyone else. An enemy of a Christian should benefit from that relationship in some way.

1 Timothy 2:1-3 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (HCSB)

I could say a lot about this verse. Suffice it to say that a) prayers and thanksgivings should be for “those who are in authority”, not against. b) Wiley Drake isn’t modeling this passage. c) Drake’s actions aren’t leading anyone “to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (he certainly doesn’t seem to be living a tranquil and quiet life either). d) This doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with our leaders, but the focus here is on prayer for them and not on political activism.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. (HCSB)

I disagree more often than not with what Obama does, but I recognize that he, along with Pilate (John 19:11), and Nebuchadnezzer (Jeremiah 27:7) AND King David (1 Samuel 16) before him were given authority according to the counsel of God’s own will. Good rulers and bad, through the history of the world (and I’m suspending judgment on which kind of ruler Obama will be) have come along and we are to pray for them and recognize that God has a plan in allowing them to be in positions of power.

A call for a response

I’m not sure how to get in touch with Wiley Drake but I encourage him to respond to this post. You can find my email address on this blog. I will even allow him to write a guest post for ChurchETHOS to explain more fully his remarks about George Tiller’s murder. I prefer to go to confront someone in private but when someone damages the faith so publicly I take it upon myself to make it known to MY friends and family that I am not a follower of Wiley Drake (or of King David for that matter). I am a follower of Jesus and I refuse to stand by quietly and let the name of Christ be stained so publicly.

A lot has been said about George Tiller’s murder in recent days. The only thing that needs to be said by children of God and followers of Jesus is that murder is wrong and that we will be praying for his family. Drake’s comments are careless, theologically misguided, and damages the churches reputation with the unchurched.

In all fairness I should say that Drake did make a few qualifying remarks; like the fact that he hadn’t been praying for Tiller’s murder, just his death. Not much better.

He also had this to say:

“This whole concept that we’re always to pray little, nice, soft, fluffy, prayers — that we’re not to pray imprecatory prayer — has been something that just, in all honesty, that Southern Baptists have lost, and we need to regain imprecatory prayer,” Drake said. “It is in the Bible, and we are proud to say as Southern Baptists that we believe the Book. You’ve got to believe the whole Book, brother, or you don’t believe any of it.”

You got one thing right, Wiley, most Southern Baptists, to their credit, have lost this judgmental sort of prayer life.

I ask for my reader’s forgiveness

I don’t usually call someone out for their errors in such a public way and I pray my readers forgiveness for this post, but I don’t apologize for what I’m saying. If Wiley Drake can so publicly defame the name of Jesus with his careless comments I will exhort him publicly to return to Christ-like love, forgiveness, and grace. Wiley, I will pray for you and I offer these comments for your edification, not your destruction. My prayers are for your repentance and not your death. I can only hope that those who desire to reply to this post on this humble semi-private blog will reply with more tact and grace than I have exhibited in my reaction to the story that is playing out much more publicly in media outlets around the country.

If someone knows how to get in touch with Wiley Drake for his comments, please send this post on to him.

Related Post: Terminating Tiller’s Life is Worse than Tiller Terminating Lives ::  Subscribe

One God, Two Gods, Three Gods, No God

Posted on by

Is it reasonable to believe in god? If there is a god, how do we go about getting to know him / her / them? Has science ruled out the possibility that god exists?

These are a few of the questions that people who are seeking tend to ask. I’ve had this conversation on several occasions with people who are trying to figure out the answers. I’ve come to realize that when someone is seriously asking these questions it is helpful to remove some obstacles so they are free to explore all the possibilities.

The Ignorance of Tolerance

picture-1The first obstacle to people believing in god is the concept of tolerance. I understand where tolerance comes from. Tolerance comes from a sincere desire to keep religions from fighting with one another. The ideal of tolerance is that some people worship god one way, others worship god another way, and it’s okay for them to do that [just don't be pushy with your beliefs, thank you very much]. The sentiment of a tolerant person is “can’t we all just get along?” — I can appreciate that.

But tolerance is ignorance…

or stupidity (depending on your frame of mind)

Most people simply go along with tolerance as an ideal because it is the foundation of our society (when it comes to various religions). They believe that all religions are equally right and/or wrong so there’s no need to force feed your beliefs on me (ignorance). Others know the shaky logic of tolerance yet remain steadfast and immovable (stupidity).

This needs to change.

Call A Doctor, I’m Feeling Polytheistic!

To help remove the obstacle of tolerance so that we can take another step towards authentic worship of god, we have to talk about the various religions of the world.

Tolerance is built on the foundation that all religions are true. Really? Can any thinking person see the problem with that assertion?

We have to realize that any statement made about god is either true or false – not both. All major religions make one of three basic statements about god: either there is NO god, there is ONE god, or there are MORE THAN ONE gods. When we say that all religions are true and that we should tolerate all viewpoints we are asking people to tolerate lies. Only one option can be correct. God’s existence and being are not dependent upon what I believe about god! God IS and we must either accept him as he IS, or flat out reject him by worshiping a false god of our own imagination.

So, when we survey the major religions of the world we discover several atheistic (no god) religions, several monotheistic (one god) religions, and several polytheistic (many gods) religions. If, for the sake of argument, each of these beliefs had one-third of the world’s population as adherents to their religions, then two-thirds of the world would be wrong! They are wasting their time! (At this point I’m not trying to make a case that my world-view is correct, just saying is all) Their life is being lived in pursuit of a lie! They think they are being sincere, but they are sincerely wrong!

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

But how do we go about discovering which one is true?

Each -theism has it’s own share of problems in establishing it’s validity. Like atheism: Hasn’t science proven that this is the most rational option? Not if god is spiritual and not material. Science has no tools to measure or observe or test the nature of god. I have a feeling that it never will.

What about monotheism and polytheism? If we say god or the gods can’t be observed isn’t that just a cop out? How can we prove there is a god or more than one gods if we can’t use our senses to find out more about him / her / them?

And by the way, do you think it’s remotely possible or even likely that god might have something to say about the matter? Does he know the truth? Has he ever offered humanity a clue as to who he might be? Or how we might know him? Or what his plan is for the universe (much less for little old me)?

The Audacity of Veracity

That’s where our search can begin: with the sacred documents of various religions. Either god exists or He doesn’t, right? If god doesn’t exist then there would not be any sacred documents describing the plan of god, the nature of god, etc. The sacred documents that we do have are simply fantastical human concoctions and to some degree they all share or plagiarize material from one another. All of them are wrong because there is no god.

But, if there are many gods then there could be many sacred documents (which there are). All of them could be true. When the Christian or the Jewish god says, “You shall have no other gods other than Me!” then you could say, well, he’s just upset with the other gods and wants all the power and glory for himself, but he’s only one of many gods. That’s a plausible theory and it actually accounts better for all the sacred documents than atheism. Wherever we are led astray comes from the gods themselves. Maybe one is lying to us by saying he’s the only god.

On the other hand, what if only one document has the Answer everyone is looking for. In that case, only the sacred document from that religion is Truth, all the others are forgeries penned by a man or woman with various motivations for doing so.

It seems to me that we need to search these documents and apply the veracity test to each of them. One could start with the predominant religions in each category. Study the sacred writings of Buddhism (atheistic religion), Hinduism (polytheistic religion), and Christianity (monotheistic religion) and simply see if anything stands out. This would be a good starting place.

Coming to Terms with Reality

One prominent atheist was confronted with all the religions of the world (including atheism) and finally had to conclude that god exists. He felt like all religions were either deep (spiritual and mysterious and only accessible by mystics, gurus and priests) or wide (easy to understand and accessible by the masses). He came to realize that only two religions were both deep and wide: Hinduism and Christianity. Since he had already come to realize that atheism is a lie, he decided to explore these two religions. In the end, after reading the Gospels in the Bible, he couldn’t escape the veracity of the story of Jesus. He couldn’t believe that a human could’ve come up with this on his or her own.

picture-2Though it was perhaps embarrassing for an established professor of literature at prestigious Oxford to admit he was wrong, C.S. Lewis became a Christian. It was the life of Jesus that made the difference. It made sense to Him. He said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” His eyes were opened and he was able to see God (notice the use of the capital G). Jesus exudes credibility. The Bible is reliable. God has revealed Himself and He is One God.

Personally, I see the universe around me and I see patterns, I see unity, I see evidence of one God. The person of Christ is unique, the Trinity is unique, the concept of Christianity is unique. It’s simple but it’s mysterious all at the same time. This isn’t proof, it’s just my personal experience of the Truth. I don’t have to prove anything to myself because I already know God. I won’t try to prove anything to you because you may be ignoring God or running from God. I’ll let you decide whether or not knowing God is in your best interests. My hope is that after reading this your curiosity will be piqued and you will have a desire to find out for yourself.

But please, please don’t say you are being tolerant by believing there can be both no god, one god, or many gods all at the same time. If you’ve read this all the way to the end then there is no room for ignorance on this matter any longer. Ignorance is simply not knowing the truth, and that’s fine, some people haven’t thought through the contradiction of tolerance. Foolishness is knowing the truth and rejecting it for selfish reasons. Ignorance is excusable, stupidity is not. After reading this post, ignorance is the only option not available to you anymore. Wisdom puts you on the path to finding God. Foolishness puts you on the path to finding nothing. If you are an atheist, you’ve already found nothing because that’s what you want to find. But for people willing to think, these are the two options before you: wisdom or foolishness.

PostScript

I share this post with you because I love you and God loves you. Truth can hurt sometimes and I don’t share the Truth with you because I’m gloating or angry. I sincerely want people to know God. God wants you to know Him. He’s given you a beautiful creation to enjoy. He’s given you His Word, the Bible, to understand Him. He offers you His love and, though we’ve all rejected Him and could even be considered as His enemies, He still wants to know you. I can understand if this post is offensive and I know you’re desire will be to bang out a hasty response in the comments section. That’s fine, as long as it doesn’t have offensive language, I will publish it. Feel free to ask questions, offer a contrary opinion, or debate my points. Just remember, I want to have a friendly, productive dialogue with my readers. Let this be a space you can use to explore the things I’ve articulated. God said, “When pride comes, disgrace follows, but with humility comes wisdom.” (Proverbs 11:2)

Related Post: Did Jesus Claim to be God? ::  Subscribe ::

Missiological Thoughts for January 6th

Posted on by

I am currently attending a two week course at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary on the subject of World Missions. This winter session is the start of my final year of seminary and this particular class ensures that it will be a good year. Yesterday I simply shared some of my notes from Day One and thought I would share, not necessarily the outline, but maybe some insights from Day Two. Hopefully, I will keep doing this for the next two weeks (with a few unrelated posts besides). As always, I invite conversation in the comments section because this is helpful to you and me as we think through these issues together.

The Great Commission

Today, Dr. Tennent spent the entire 3 hours discussing the Great Commission. There were a few things that were familiar and a few things that were brand new to me. The outline was quite simple. He went through each of the gospels and ennumerated all of the references to Jesus’ mission to the Gentiles. This culminated into the Great Commission passages from Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 (and Acts 1:8), and John 20.

The Usual (but still good) Insights

1. The Matthean Commission

The command in Matthew 28:19 is not “Go” as most people seem to think, it is “make disciples”. I’ve personally been saying this for quite some time and wish more people got it. My professor talked about the imperatival use of the verb “make disciples” whereas, the other verbs are participles that modify the main verb: “as you are going”, “as you are baptizing”, “as you are teaching”. This is a church that is already on the go, and their task is to make disciples.

The full phrase is to “make disciples of all the nations”. The nations here are not meant to be geo-political entities. They are specifically meant to refer to people groups.

2. The Markan Commission

Mark 16:9ff are not included in the earliest Greek manuscripts. As a result, we cannot place the same authority on this text as we do on the rest of Scripture. Mark’s ending could’ve been lost, or he intentionally meant to end His gospel abruptly in the middle of a theological point. The new ending is anonymous but has been accepted by the church and it is not inconsistent with the thought of Mark and can still be preached.

3. The Lukan Commission

Luke emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the fact that we don’t “do” missions, we join God in HIS mission. He opened the eyes of the men in Luke 24 so that they would recognize Him. He opened the minds of His disciples so that they would do His will. Apart from God’s work in people’s hearts, there is nothing that we can say or do to make someone trust in Christ.

The New Insights (that I hadn’t thought of before)

1. The Matthean Commission

Most people in the Church associate the phrase “Great Commission” with Mt 28:18-20. We should delete that file and talk about the Great Commission (singular) that is found in all four Gospels. The Great Commission refers to the overall mandate that the One who was sent is now sending the Church.

2. The Markan Commission

Mark’s account seems to focus on individuals rather than people groups. Jesus says to “Go into all the world” World is less specific than Matthew’s “nation”. The imperative here is to “proclaim the message to all creation”. Since the world population of Jesus’ day was only 250 million and now is around 6.2 million, world population has changed the scope of Jesus’ commission to His first disciples. We have to go where the people are. Right now, around 60% of the world’s population are in China and India. If they are not receptive to the Gospel that will have huge implications on the future of the Church.

3. The Lukan Commission

There are no imperatives in the Lukan Commission. In fact, Luke is the first one to record actual content OF the Gospel that is to be proclaimed in the commission. The content of the commission starts with the prophecies that the Messiah would come and be killed but would rise on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached to the nations. The next verse simply calls attention to the fact that the disciples are witnesses that this has taken place and He tells them that He is sending them the Spirit to help them. No command, just observation, but it’s an observation with implicit action involved.

Final Thoughts

Though Matthew, Mark, and Luke share some material, the Great Commission passages found in the Synoptics and also in John and in Acts 1:8 appear to be 5 separate sayings. For one thing, they take place in at least three different settings: Bethany, Jerusalem, and a mountain in Galilee. For another thing, they have completely different wordings and emphases.

Tomorrow I will be learning about the Johannine Commission. I’m looking forward to it. Meanwhile, what thoughts do you have in follow up to these other points. I should point out that these insights are not the entire content of the lecture. I just wanted to give you a couple of things that Dr. Tennent pointed out that were of interest to me.

World Missions

Posted on by

picture-11Today was the first day of my winter session course on World Missions at GCTS. Tim Tennent is my professor. The class is 3 hours a day for 2 weeks including reading 1200 pages and 7 assigned theological journal articles, two tests, and exact memorization of 20 Bible verses and 150 countries on the world map. Since I read about 30 pages an hour, the task seems daunting as it will take me an estimated 120+ hours for lectures, reading, and memorization/studying. However, after the first lecture, I am extremely excited about this course.

For one thing, the professor began with an amazing description of the “Seven Mega-Trends Affecting Global Missions in the 21st Century”. Here are some of the highlights from my notes:

1st Mega-Trend “The Collapse of Christendom”

◊ For the longest time, Christianity was at the center of American culture. It was socially acceptable and sometimes even profitable to be Christian in our society. In the 21st century, however, Christianity will move more and more towards the periphery.
◊ Hendrik Kraemer said, “The Church is always in a state of crisis; its greatest shortcoming is that it is only occasionally aware of it.”
◊ We are moving from a state of belief to a state of unbelief.
◊ We are moving from a denominational to a global identity. Being Presbyterian or Methodist is not as important today.

2nd Mega-Trend “The Rise of Postmodernism”

◊ There are theological, cultural, and ecclesiastical crises that arise from postmodernism. People no longer believe that truth is true. The power of the word is lost for most people. For a preacher who believes that God has revealed Himself through words, this is a dangerous mindset.

3rd Mega-Trend “The Collapse of ‘the West Reaches the Rest’ Paradigm”

◊ The emergence of a Post-Christian West (4200 people are leaving the Christian faith per day in Western countries).
◊ The emergence of a Post-Western Christianity (In non-Western cultures, Christianity is blossoming, for example, in Africa alone Christianity gains about 24,000 new members per day!)

4th Mega-Trend “The Changing Face of Global Christianity” (related to Mega-Trend #3)

◊ Top 10 people groups that are most accepting of the Gospel today are in India and China.
◊ Top 10 people groups that are least accepting of the Gospel today are in Europe and North America.

5th Mega-Trend “The Emergence of a Fourth Branch of Christianity”

◊ Traditionally, there have been three: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Today, there is an undefined and indistinct fourth branch emerging.
◊ Sometimes, this branch is referred to as “independent” but that is a very limited title.

6th Mega-Trend “The Impact of Globalization”

◊ If it weren’t for the immigrant population in the U.S. the Western Church would be in serious trouble. Most of the growth in American churches are in minority populations. Contrast that with Europe where Islam is growing rapidly because of immigration.
◊ The rise of urbanization and new technologies also affect our approach to missions around the world. 19th century missions was geared towards rural communities. Today, most of the largest unreached people groups are found in cities.

7th Mega-Trend “The Rise of a Deeper Ecumenism”

◊ There’s no reason to forsake our denominational identity but we can no longer be exclusive to our denomination, or allow our denomination to be our overarching identity. Though Protestant, I can’t be confined or defined by some events that took place in the 16th century, there are millions of Christians around the world that don’t place the same emphases on what the Reformers emphasized.

The conclusion to this particular lecture was that as young pastors and missionaries, we will be engaging in a new frontier. Almost everything is changing. It is an exciting and challenging time to be joing God’s mission around the world.

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Posted on by

jesusteachingsqLast night my Bible study group had a great discussion from John 10. Since I’m working on translating Greek all day today for my Exegesis class, I thought I would take a few minutes and share what we talked about and invite you to join the conversation.

To begin with, we talked about how Jesus claimed to be God here in John 10. There are dozens of other places that can be discussed but from this one passage, there are several proofs that Jesus was claiming to be God.

1. John 10:25 – After the Jews said, “If You are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus responded and said, “I did tell you and you don’t believe.” Don’t believe what? Obviously, the Jews were having a hard time believing that Jesus was the Messiah. We can infer, therefore, that Jesus is saying “I did tell you [that I am the Messiah] and you don’t believe.” Clearly, Jesus is NOT saying “I did tell you [that I am NOT the Messiah] and you don’t believe” because there is no ambiguity on what the Jews believed and didn’t believe.

2. John 10:28 – Jesus goes on to talk about how His sheep follow Him and then He says, “I give them eternal life.” That’s a pretty bold statement for a mere human to make. The Jews believed that only God Himself could give eternal life. Therefore, Jesus is clearly stating that He is God.

3. John 10:30 – Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.” Again, the devout Jew would never claim to be one with God. For Jesus to say this is to say that He is God.

4. John 10:33 – If we knew nothing of the Jewish context and couldn’t read between the lines of what Jesus said, the clearest proof that Jesus was claiming to be God doesn’t actually come from anything that He Himself said. The clearest proof of Jesus’ claim to divinity comes from the critics. They picked up stones to kill Jesus and said that their reason was “because You – being a man – make Yourself God.” They sensed no ambiguity in what Jesus was claiming. They knew that He was claiming to be God and were ready to kill Him for it.

5. John 10:36 – Jesus asks rhetorically, “do you say, ‘You are blaspheming’ to the One the Father set apart and sent into the world, because I said: I am the Son of God?” He then tells them to look at the works that He is performing as evidence of the veracity of His statements and then says, “This way you will know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Father.” Here Jesus alludes to the fact that He has said, “I am the Son of God.” and further reinforces that the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. This could be two separate proofs of Jesus’ deity but I’ve rolled it into one proof for brevity. It doesn’t need to be repeated that this was a clear indication to the Jews that Jesus was claiming to be God and once again they try to seize Him so that they could kill Him but he escapes.

So, did Jesus claim to be God? Here are several proofs that that’s exactly what Jesus was claiming. We could also look at all the times Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” – the Old Testament reference to the Messiah. We could look at Colossians 1:15-16 which says, “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the One who is preeminent over all creation; because by Him everything was created…” We could look at John 1:1 which says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Of course, Colossians 1 and John 1 are not evidences that Jesus Himself claimed to be God, but they reveal what His disciples thought about Him because that’s what they wrote about Him. Taken together, Jesus clearly claimed time and again that He was the Messiah, the Son of God. So, if there are any Jehovah’s Witnesses reading this, I would love to hear your thoughts.

What do you think? Did Jesus Claim to be God? Anyone else want to offer insight into Jesus’ claim to be God? Does anyone see a flaw in the logic here? Let me know what you think.

Subscribe :: Subscribe by Email :: Comment

Distinctively Christian: The Trinity

Posted on by
This series of posts will address the theological and practical ways we as Christians are encouraged to be different. Some Christians become very different and are seen as quirky and out of touch. Other Christians try to blend in and seek to keep their faith to themselves. Both of these extremes are destructive to the Church. The thinking Christian has to discover those areas where they are to be different in thought and action from the world without sacrificing influence and reputation with the world.

GOD

Our view of God is the most radical and original view known to humanity. It is not in the best interests of humanity to come up with the God of the Bible which is a strong argument (though not the only one) in favor of the God of the Bible. All the religions of the world come up with a god in their own image but, again, no human could have anticipated our God.

One God in Three Persons?

The distinct doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that God is one God in three persons. At the beginning of his Gospel, John writes, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” I encourage you to continue reading chapter one of John’s Gospel to discover that “the Word” is referring to Jesus and it goes on to say that “all things were created through Him…” Here, John is not only placing Jesus as an equal with God, he’s teaching something that grates against our human understanding – that Jesus is with God and, at the same time, that He IS God! How can Jesus be with God and be God at the same time? At other places in the Bible we also see that the Spirit of God is a separate person and is also with God and is God at the same time. I’ve said elsewhere that it’s difficult to explain this concept other than to say that if God were easy to explain then there wouldn’t be any mystery or awe when we ponder His divine nature. God is Father, Spirit, and Son together in perfect unity and community and oneness.

One God Not Three gods

This post will not delve into all of the wonderful ramifications of worshiping a God who is One yet three. However, I do want to say a little bit about who or what God is not. The God of the Bible is not three gods. The God of the Bible is not many gods. He also is not simply a god with only one person. In order for God to be God, He must be viewed in terms of the Trinity. Herman Bavinck, a Dutch Reformed Theologian said, “The confession of the Trinity is the heartbeat of the Christian religion. All error is traceable to a departure from this doctrine.” As a result, the God of the Bible is the only God that exists and the only God worthy of our worship. To worship any other god is to deny the one true God, placing oneself in opposition to God. To reject the triune God is to rebel and to be willing to suffer the consequences.

I realize this sounds exclusive and close-minded. As Billy Graham puts it, when he flies he hopes his pilot is close-minded when he decides to land the plane. We certainly don’t want our pilots to be coming in any way they want. We are all close-minded to some extent. I refuse to drive on the wrong side of the road. I guess I could choose to drive on the wrong side of the road but then I would be inviting destruction upon myself and others. You could say I am closed to the idea of driving on the wrong side of the road. G.K. Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” Let’s all just get over the fact that close-mindedness is not always a bad thing. God will not accept our worship of false gods any more than my wife would accept me giving myself to a prostitute (even if she did look like my wife). When you get married, you close yourself to other women. Now that I know God, I have chosen to reject all other false gods.

The God Who Came Down the Mountain

So, is Christianity exclusive and intolerant? Is it bad news to suggest that Jesus is the only path the triune God has given us by which we may know Him? The Trinity is the most inclusive and inviting God humans could ever have wanted. Our God has invited all to repent and believe in Him and has promised eternal and abundant life for those who do. Christians often quote Romans 3:23 out of context: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That is definitely bad news but in the context or Romans 3, it is part of the best news humanity will ever receive. In context, Paul is saying that God is aware of our helpless condition and that we are His enemies because of our sin against Him. Romans 3:23 is from God’s perspective. In other words, He is aware that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” so He chose in His mercy and love to do something about it. The very next sentence says, “They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The next sentence tells us that God removed His wrath from those who have faith in Jesus and that He passes over their sins. The next sentence after that says that He did all of this to demonstrate His righteousness and to declare us righteous. He doesn’t make us stop sinning and make us perfect (have you met any Christians lately?), but He declares that we have become holy and blameless in his sight.

Every religion of the world says that different religions are like different paths to God. They suggest eloquently that we are all climbing the same mountain and God is waiting tolerantly and lovingly at the top for us to arrive. The thinking Christian has discovered that God is not a passive God waiting for us to figure it out and make it to the top. The thinking Christian knows that those paths lead to nowhere and will eventually end in death and eternal separation from the one true triune God because those religions are seeking a god of their own making (God calls it idolatry). The good news is, the thinking Christian knows that, even though we cannot attain God’s good favor through our own effort, God is an active God who has already made it possible for us to know Him and have fellowship with Him. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6) Sounds very exclusive, but it is the most inclusive offer humanity will ever receive. Though we are completely cut off because of our sinful nature and our rejection of God, God has offered us life through His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone is free to accept Him and enter into a relationship with the Creator God.

Our Trinity is a wonderful God. He is the God who created us. He is the God who saves us from ourselves. He is the God who offers eternal and abundant life through faith in Him. He is the God who will not tolerate a world that denies Him. He is the God who won’t accept the worship of counterfeit gods. He is always consistent, He is always faithful, and He will always love us. He is One God in three persons. This is the God whom I love and serve.