Theology

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 6

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson 

 We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a more historical theological tradition.  

 “Look,” I said, “I have heard you mention that many Christians don’t study their Bibles. Were you saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this question of God’s sovereignty hasn’t done his homework?”   

 Pastor Spenser shook his head. “No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that, in my experience, most of them have not.”   

 “But you would agree that there are fine Bible scholars who differ with you on this?”   

“That depends on what you mean.”   

 “What do you mean?”   

 “There are men who are fine Christians who do not understand this truth. There are men who are fine scholars who differ with it. But when they dispute this truth, in certain key passages, there is an unfortunate lapse of their scholarship.”   

 “May I play the devil’s advocate?”   

“Certainly.”   

“Who are you to say what the correct interpretation is? Isn’t it arrogant of you to say that you are right and all the others are wrong?”   

 “It is not a question of whether I am right. It is a question of whether God revealed this truth in his Word, or not.”   

 “I don’t get your point.”   

 “We must not, as Christians, determine whether or not God has revealed something by how many men acknowledge the revelation. The content of the revelation is determined by the careful and laborious study of the text. It is not determined by counting noses. Not even scholarly noses.”   

 “Are you saying that you cannot make a mistake when you go to the text?”   

 “No, certainly not. I have made many mistakes. But I may only acknowledge my error when someone shows me the mistake from the text.”   

 “Now how does this relate to the question of God’s exhaustive sovereignty?”   

 “I have had many Christians tell me I am wrong about all this predestination business. But only a handful of them have ever endeavored to demonstrate the error I am supposed to be making from the text.”   

 “What do the rest of them do?”   

 “They break down into two basic categories. The first group talks just long enough to establish where the disagreement lies; after that, they avoid any discussion of the issue. Thinking about it discomfits them. The second group will talk about it; indeed, many times they enjoy talking about it. But the authority to which they appeal makes any resolution of the question impossible. Their authority, their court of appeals, is reason, common sense, and armchair philosophy. They will say that reason requires us to acknowledge that we have ‘free will’. Otherwise, how could God blame us? For who resists His will? This group acknowledges the authority of the Bible – on paper – but does not submit to the arbitration of Scripture.”   

 “Why do you think this is?”   

 “I cannot say; I merely see the results of it. Only God sees the heart. I am not competent to say what obstacles may exist in their hearts, although I do not doubt they are there. It is my business to see to it that there is no obstacle to their understanding in my heart.”   

 “What do you mean?”   

“I mean any kind of pride, haughtiness, impatience…whatever. If there is any of this on my part, it may well be used by God to keep fellow Christians from these wonderful truths. In the providence of God, matters are arranged in the church in such a way that it is possible to stumble your brother.”   

 “Can you give me an example of this from Scripture?”   

 “Sure. In 2 Timothy 2:25, it assumes that God is the Giver of repentance. When a man repents, he is the recipient of a gift.”   

 I had looked the passage up. “Well, it sure looks that way.”   

 “Now many Christians deny that repentance is a gift of God. In a discussion with such a person, what do you think the temptation is?”   

 I grinned. “To beat them over the head with this verse?”   

 “Exactly. Now back up and read the previous verse, this verse, and the verse after.”   

 I looked down. “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”   

 I glanced up again. “But isn’t this talking about a debate with a non-Christian?”   

“Yes, it is. And if we ought to correct unbelievers with such humility, what should our demeanor be toward brothers?”   

 “Got it.” I said.   

 “Now notice that the behavior of the one who knows the truth is connected with the possible change of heart of the one listening, if God is gracious and so wills it.”   

 “So how do you tie this in with our discussion? If all this is so clear in the Scriptures, why do Christians deny what you say the Bible teaches?”   

 “I would suggest that the problem is not with those who don’t believe it, but with those who do.”   

 “How so?”   

 “Some Christians deny God’s exhaustive sovereignty, and they live in a manner consistent with that denial. Other Christians affirm it, but then go on to deny it with their lives. The second group has more to answer for.”   

 “You can’t be saying that the church is in this sad condition because this is the way God has willed it?”   

 “Well, yes, I am. If God controls everything, then He certainly controls this.”   

 “But why? That seems so contrary to everything I have ever learned about God and His relationship to the church.”   

 “I don’t know why either. I am not sure a creature could understand why. But I do know that I am not going to water down clear statements of Scripture just because I want to worship a God who meets with my approval!”   

 “Is there any passage of Scripture that teaches that God controls backslidings?”   

 “Yes. Isaiah 63:17. `O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? Return for Your servants’ sake, the tribes of Your inheritance.’”   

“So you are also saying that the reason so many Christians deny this truth is…”   

“…is that God has willed it. Yes. He has hardened our hearts. And, anticipating the question, it does not lessen our responsibility in the slightest.”   

“Is it wrong to ask why God does this?”   

“No. Isaiah asks why. I believe that when Christians acknowledge that God has done this, and begin tearfully asking why He has done it, we will be on the edge of true revival. True revival is something He gives.”   

I was shaking my head. “I don’t know…”   

Pastor Spenser went on. “The modern evangelical church is drowning in an ocean of theological stupidity. Here and there are handfuls of the `orthodox’ clinging to the wreckage of what was once a great ship. In such a condition, it is impertinent to even be tempted to pride.” 

“But why would God do that to His own ship?”   

“He has done it, and He is God. That is enough. By all that Scripture teaches, His reasons were good, just, and holy. And when we consider the glorious future that is promised for the gospel in the world, we should take courage as we pray for revival. It will be clear to us later.”   

“And in the meantime…?”   

“In the meantime, those Christians who have been given an understanding of this should not puff themselves up. We know that what Job says in Job 42:2 is true. `I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from you.’ But they must also respond to this truth the way Job did in vv. 5-6. `I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.’”   

“How are you applying this?”   

“It is one thing to hear truth, and agree with it. Many have come to believe these things simply because they are attracted to a system which is logically consistent. Or perhaps they are repelled by the shallowness of so much of our preaching and teaching today. Or they are the studious type, and like to read books by the Puritans.”   

Pastor Spenser went on. “But it is quite another thing to be given a vision of the glory of God and to be, like Job, undone by it.”   

“Are you saying it is bad to be studious, or systematic?”   

“No, not at all. Hard study is required by God, as well as to compare carefully one portion of Scripture with another. Over many years, many people have told me that I study too much, but the Holy Spirit convicts me regularly that I study too little.”   

“What are you saying then?”   

“Hard study can be compared to chopping wood, assembling the kindling, and putting all the wood together for the fire. There are churches that have a good idea of where the wood should go, but they have forgotten there is supposed to be a fire.”   

“And others…?”   

“Others, theologically shallow, know there is supposed to be a fire. But they use grass, thorns, paper, and a lot of lighter fluid.”   

“How do you see your work?”   

“I have chopped a lot of good wood – although less than I should have – and I have assembled it. Now I am waiting, and praying to God.”   

“Praying for what?”  Pastor Spenser thought for a moment. 

“Praying for the fire to fall.” 

****

  This is Part 6 in a series of 6.

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 4

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson

We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a historical theological tradition.  

 ***** 

Pastor Spenser shifted easily in his seat while I carefully thought over my next question. “Some of my friends at my church have figured out that I have been coming to see you,” I said.  

Pastor Spenser nodded, and waited.  

“Naturally,” I said, “they are somewhat concerned.”  

“Naturally. About what?”  

“Well, they say that Christians who believe in the exhaustive sovereignty of God are setting themselves up.”  

“For…?”  

“For the temptation which says that because God controls everything, then the way I live doesn’t really matter.”  

“I see. In other words, if I am elect, then my sins won’t damn me, and if I am not, then all the good works in the world won’t save me. Is that it?”  

“Yes. That is exactly it. If the whole thing was settled before the world began, then why bother? My friends know that there are true Christians who believe this, but they think that, because of this theology, these Christians will tend to become careless about how they live.”  

“Why should we take responsibility for our actions after we have embraced a theology which cuts the nerve of personal responsibility?”  

“Right. If God controls everything, then what room is there for personal holiness?”  

Pastor Spenser thought for a moment. “The problem is not with your friends’ concern for personal holiness. That is admirable. All Christians should set their faces against carnal living on the part of professing Christians. But it does no good to oppose carnal living with carnal reasoning.”  

“What do you mean?”  

“When someone is whooping it up down at the bars, or sleeping with their girlfriend, why do we say it is sin?”  

“Is this a trick question?”  

Pastor Spenser grinned. “You might say that. Why do we call such things sin?”  

“Because the Bible does.”  

“Exactly. So this carnal living we have been talking about is a lifestyle that is not in submission to the clear teaching of the Word of God.”  

“Well, sure. But I still don’t see where you are going with this.”  

“Now if carnal living is a lifestyle that does not submit to God’s Word, then how should we define carnal reasoning?” 

“The same way, I suppose?”  

“Right. It is not enough to submit what we do externally to God; we must also submit the way we think. Your friends are trying to defend God’s standards for living by abandoning His standards for thinking. It cannot be successful.”  

“Is there a passage where this point is clear?”  

“Yes, in Philippians. Chapter 2, verses 12 and 13.”  

I turned to Philippians and read. “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” I looked up.  

“What does the passage say God is doing?” Pastor Spenser asked.  

I looked down again. “It says that He is working in the Philippians, both in willing and doing, and that the result is His good pleasure.”  

“And what would carnal reasoning do with that?”  

“Well, the response would be that if God is doing the willing, and if God is doing the doing, and the result is whatever He wants, then there is no reason for me to put myself out. It is going to happen anyway.”  

“Right. The reasoning says that if God is going to do the work, then why should I have to?”  

I nodded, and Pastor Spenser went on.  

“But what application of this truth does Paul command the Philippians to obey?”  

I looked at the passage again. “He tells them to work out their own salvation, with fear and trembling.” I glanced down further. “And in the next verse he goes on to specific ethical instruction – to avoid murmuring and disputing.”  

I sat and thought for a moment. “But my friends would say that the application they are making is obvious – common sense.”  

“Well, it certainly is common. But is it biblical?”  

“Why do so many Christians fall for this line of reasoning then? It seems like a trap that is extremely easy to fall into.”  

“Well, yes, it easy to fall into. But it is also easy to drink too much, not watch your tongue, lust after women, and so forth. And these are things which the church recognizes as sin, and warns the people against. But carnal reasoning is also easy, and almost no one warns the people.”  

“Why not?”  

“Sheep are hungry because shepherds don’t feed them. Shepherds don’t feed them because shepherds don’t have food.” Pastor Spenser leaned forward in his seat. “The shepherds don’t have food because they don’t study their Bibles.”  

“You think it is obvious in the Word?”  

“Certainly. When the apostle Paul magnified the prerogatives of the sovereign God, he fully anticipated the response of carnal reasoning.” Pastor Spenser leaned back, closed his eyes, and quoted, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” A modern pastor, in the unlikely event that someone asked him this, would say that it was a good question, and that he wrestles with it often himself. Paul tells the questioner to shut up and sit down. ‘But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?’”  

“Paul doesn’t answer the question then?”  

Pastor Spenser opened his eyes. “Oh, he does. It just isn’t the answer carnal reason wants.”  

“So what is the answer?”  

“The answer is God – the same answer that is given at the end of the book of Job. Carnal reason doesn’t see a real answer there either. But believe me, it is a real answer. The answer is the ground of reality; the answer is God.”  

“What happens at the end of the book of Job?”  

“The questions raised in the book are conducive to carnal reason; indeed, even non-Christians are attracted to the first part of the book of Job. As they would put it, ‘It addresses the human condition.’ But then, at the end of the book, God comes in, with glory and thunder. And do you know what? He doesn’t answer any of the impertinent questions; rather, He poses some sobering questions of His own. ‘Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’”  

I nodded. “And He asks where Job was when the universe was created.”  

“The question is not irrelevant. It is the heart of the matter. Discussions of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility very rarely display any understanding at all of Who the Creator is.”  

“But my friends would say that you are making God responsible for evil, and that they are concerned to protect God’s honor and glory.”  

Pastor Spenser looked at me intently. “It is true that the affirmation of God’s total control over all things causes some to blaspheme. But your friends need not be concerned for God’s glory; man’s slanders and blasphemies do not touch Him. Such slanderers are pelting the sun with wadded-up balls of tissue paper.”  

“They are stumbling over something though.”  

“They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.”  

“Now, see? Why do you have to put these things so strongly? Doesn’t that cause people to react to what you are teaching? They were appointed to stumble?”  

“That wasn’t my choice of words. I was quoting 1 Peter 2:8.”  

“Oh. Oops.”  

“Your friends are concerned that God be seen as good. But seen as good by whom? Those who believe the Word of God will know that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Of course He is good – by definition. And those who do not believe the Word of God will persist in thinking that there is a tribunal or court somewhere in which God will one day be arraigned. On the day of judgment, their folly will be apparent to all – even to them.”  

“So how do we bring this back to the original point?”  

“The original point was the concern that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty would be made into a cushion for sin. My answer to this is that we must, in all things, recognize God as God. We must do so in how we live holy lives, but we must also do so in why we live holy lives. We are to live in a holy way because God has commanded it.”  

“But you would also say that what God has commanded the believer He has also given the believer.”  

“Well, certainly.”  

“I honestly see why carnal reason has a problem with this.”  

“And I honestly see why carnal men want to lust after beautiful women. But what does the Bible say?”  

“What do you mean?”  

“What is the greatest commandment?”  

“That we love God.”  

“And what is the first fruit of the Spirit?”  

“Love.” I said. “I see.”  

“What do you see?” Pastor Spenser asked.  

“This takes us back to Philippians. We are commanded to work out what God works in.”  

“Right.” he said. “Nothing less.”

***

This is Part 4 in a series of 6 posts titled Easy Chairs & Hard Words.

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 3

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson 

“At last,” I thought. “Now we should be able to talk about what brought me here in the first place.” Pastor Spenser and I were both settling in chairs with the conversation already well under way. 

“I know what your position is,” I said. “But I am afraid that I still don’t know why.” 

“And what is my position?” he said, smiling. 

“Well, I assume that you believe that it is not possible for a Christian to lose his salvation…that’s correct, isn’t it.” 

“Sort of.” 

I grinned. “Way to come down clearly on the issue.” 

Pastor Spenser laughed. “There would be a lot more peace in the church if Christians learned to frame their questions more biblically.” 

“How do you mean?” 

“The question is posed as to whether a Christian can lose his salvation, the pros and cons line up, and debate the question as it was posed. But salvation is not a personal possession of ours, like car keys, which can be misplaced by us.” 

“So what is the real question?” 

“The way the question is usually asked, we wonder if a Christian can lose his salvation, which is the same as asking whether a Christian can lose Christ. Some say yes, and others no.” 

“And you would say…?” 

“I would ask whether Christ can lose a Christian.” 

“I don’t get you.” 

“Christians are those who are redeemed or purchased for God through the blood of Christ. We have been bought with a price. Now if someone, so purchased, winds up in Hell, then who has lost that person’s salvation?” 

“I’m sorry, I must be thick. I still don’t get what you are driving at.” 

“Christians cannot lose their salvation, for the simple reason that their salvation does not belong to them. It belongs to Christ. If anyone is to lose it, it must be He. And He has promised not to.” 

“Where does the Bible teach that we are His possession?” 

“There are many passages which cover this…too many to cover tonight. Why don’t we just look at several? I’ll give you a list of others.” 

“Fair enough.” 

“In Revelation 5:9-10, the new song in honor of the Lamb states that He has redeemed us to God by His blood – from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.” 

“And…” 

“In 1 Corinthians 6:20, it says, `For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” 

“It seems pretty clear.” 

“Right. In salvation, Christ does not become our property; we become His. So in discussing this, we must remember that all the saving is done by Him. Those who want to maintain that salvation can be lost are really saying that He is one who loses it.” 

“This throws the whole debate into a completely different light.” 

“It does. And frankly, it is the difference between grace and works.” 

“How so?” 

“To assert that a man can lose his salvation through what he does or does not do is to assert, in the final analysis, salvation by works.” 

“But the church in which I grew up taught that you can lose your salvation, but they also preached salvation by grace.” 

“Not quite. They preached a conversion experience by grace. But how is that experience to be maintained and protected? And by whom? They begin with the Spirit, but seek to finish through human effort.”  I must have looked confused, so he continued. 

“Were you ever taught that you could, by committing certain sins, place yourself outside of Christ?” 

“Yes, and it terrified me.” 

“Now, let’s say that you committed such a sin, and then were killed in a car wreck? Where would you go?” 

“To Hell.” 

“And why?” 

“Because I had sinned, and a holy God cannot look on sin.” 

“And your salvation, or lack of it, was up to whom?”  

“You are arguing that it was up to me. I can tell you that it certainly felt that way. The more I wanted to serve God, the more condemned I felt.” 

“Don’t you see that your insecurity was the result of your salvation riding on a roulette wheel…every day?” 

“How so?” 

“If you died on Monday, you go to be with the Lord. If you died on Thursday, off to Hell. On Sunday night, you are heaven-bound again.” 

“You are saying that this is salvation by works?” 

“What else can we call it? And it produces two kinds of people. One group is confident in their own righteousness, but they have watered down the righteous standards of God in order to delude themselves this way. The other group is comprised of sincere people, who, because they are honest, realize that they are under condemnation.” 

“It seems a little strong to say that they are professing salvation by works, though.” 

“Paul rebuked Peter to his face at Antioch, and why? Because Peter did something as “trivial” as withdrawing table fellowship from Gentiles temporarily. But Paul knew that the gospel was threatened by this. How much more is it threatened through teaching that a Christian can do a “work” which will blow his salvation away? This teaching makes salvation depend upon the works of men.” 

“You contrasted this with grace.” 

“Correct. Salvation by grace is a gift from God. “Salvation” by works is man’s attempt to earn his way into the presence of God, or in this case, his attempt to earn his right to stay there.” 

“But what is to prevent someone from saying they are “saved by grace,” and then going to sin up a storm?” 

Pastor Spenser laughed. “Nothing at all. Sinners can say and do what they please. Until the judgment.” 

“But how would you answer the objection?” 

“There are two things worth noting about it. One is that having to answer it places me in good company. The apostle Paul had to answer the same objection in Romans 6, against those who objected to his message of grace. Secondly, the answer is the one Paul gives. Recipients of grace do not get to decide to receive forgiveness grace, while passing on death to sin grace. How can we who died to sin, still live in it?” 

“But aren’t there some who teach that salvation can be lost simply to keep this type of person from presumption?” 

“There are some who insist on teaching that Christians can lose their salvation out of a concern they have for ‘holiness’. They say that if this is not done, then people will abuse grace. But if you hold the biblical perspective, you do not consider grace a possession of ours, to be abused or not. Rather, grace belongs to God, and He never abuses it.” 

“This means what?” 

“In Ephesians 2:8-9, we learn that we are saved by grace through faith. In the next verse, we learn that we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works prepared beforehand by God. God’s grace is never truly abused because it belongs to God. Those outside abuse the name grace, but they cannot touch the thing itself.” 

“You sound like you have very little respect for those on the other side of this issue.” 

“That is not quite true. Some of them are teaching another gospel, and the condemnation of the apostle is sufficient for them. But there are others who are true Christians, and who hold this position because of their reading of certain texts…Hebrews 10:26, for example.” 

“You respect them?” 

“Yes. I believe them to be wrong, but their error proceeds from a desire to be honest with the text. With the purveyors of a false gospel, the error comes from an almost complete confusion of grace and works.” 

“What about Hebrews 10:26?” 

“We are almost out of time. Why don’t I read that passage, adding some comments of my own based on the context of Hebrews. Then you can go back through the book with that context in mind. It should be helpful in chapter 6 as well.” 

“Fine.”

 “For if we sin willfully by going back to the sacrifices of bulls and goats after we have received the knowledge of the truth that Christ was the once for all sacrifice for sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins because temple sacrifice of bulls and goats is a system that is fading away, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries because they are sacrificing their bulls and goats in a temple that will be destroyed in just a few years.” 

I laughed. “Is all that in the Greek?” 

Pastor Spenser grinned. “No, but it is in the context. Read through the book of Hebrews with the impending destruction of Jerusalem in mind, and consider the problem caused by professing Christians who were being tempted to return to Jerusalem in order to sacrifice there. The fire that was going to consume the enemies of God in this passage is not hellfire.” 

“So what is the basic issue here?” 

“It is grace; grace and works. Works is a barren mother; she will never have any children, much less gracious children. Grace is fruitful; her children are many, and they all work hard.”

****

This is Part 3 in a series of 6.

 

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 2

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 

by Douglas Wilson

I had thought of a question during the week which I thought would bring our conversation back to some evangelical “basics.” My sessions with Pastor Spencer were unsettling and fascinating both; on the one hand I was attracted by his approach to the Scriptures, but on the other I was concerned about the danger of “too much theology” getting in the way of basic Christianity. After we had settled in our chairs, I presented my concern.  

“Why should Christians discuss the sorts of doctrines we have been discussing? Shouldn’t we just stick to the gospel? Sinful men need to be told that they must be born again, and here we sit, week after week, splitting theological hairs.”  

Pastor Spencer chuckled. “To be sure, sinful men need to be told that they must be born again. What would you say if one of them asked you what on earth that meant?”  

I stared at him. “Isn’t that obvious? It means that men must become Christians.”  

Pastor Spencer took a sip of his coffee. “How does one do that?”  

I thought for a moment. “Well, the person must repent of his sins, and must put his faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for sinners.”  

Pastor Spenser smiled. “Very good–so far. Most Christians would leave the cross out of it altogether–they would say something like `ask Jesus into your heart,’ or `make a commitment to Christ.’ Now what happens after he repents and believes?”  

“He is born again.”  

“Now are you aware that this order–`Repent, believe, and then you will be born again’–is not in the Bible?  

I was actually aware of no such thing, so I shook my head. “What do you mean?”  

“How do you know that the biblical order is not, `You must be born again, in order to repent and believe?’”  

I think my mouth was hanging open. I had never heard anything like this before.  

“You mean that the new birth is first?”  

Pastor Spencer nodded.  

“In the order you have assumed, man makes a choice, and then he is born again. But the Bible places the choice regarding the new birth in God’s hands, not man’s.”  

“Where?” I asked.  

“There are three basic arguments from Scripture for this. The first is how the Spirit’s work is described; the second is the nature of birth; and the third would be express statements of Scripture to this effect.  

I nodded. “OK, let’s start with the first.”  

He had me turn to John 3:7-8, and I read. “Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” I looked up.  

Pastor Spencer said, “Would you agree that it is fairly common for Christians to evangelize by telling people how to be born again?”  

“Certainly. Isn’t that what evangelism is?”  

“No. Evangelism is preaching the death of Christ for sinners, and the necessity of repentance and belief. Telling people how to be born again is like telling people how to understand where the wind comes from, and where it is going. The new birth is mysterious – it is the work of the Spirit of God, not the work of man.”  

“So you are saying that the new birth cannot be controlled by men.”  

“Yes. I am saying that the wind blows where He pleases.”  

“What must men do then?”  

“They must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”  

“So repentance and belief are what the man contributes?”  

“In a way. It is the man who repents and believes, but the Spirit has made that repentance and belief possible by giving the sinner a new heart through regeneration. So, for example, repentance is described as something men do (Acts 26:20), but it is also seen as a gift from God (2 Tim. 2:25). In contrast, the new birth is never described as anything done by man. It is always shown as the imperial work of God.”  

“You mentioned the nature of birth. What did you mean by that?”  

“Jesus taught that the new birth is necessary. From this, many have falsely concluded that it is a command to be obeyed by us. But `be born’ is a passive verb, not active. `Repent’ and `believe’ are active.”  

“What does that mean?”  

“It means that those who are born again are recipients. A birth is not something one volunteers for; it is something that happens to him.”  

“Can you illustrate?”  

“Sure. I was in the Navy for four years, and I am a Spencer. I joined the Navy (voluntarily) and my family (not voluntarily). When Jesus compared the start of the Christian life to a birth, which type of `joining’ did He have in mind?”  

“The second, I guess,” I said reluctantly.  

“And which type of joining is presented in most modern evangelism?”  

“The first.” I didn’t know why I felt so miserable.  

“Exactly. One of the major problems we have in the church today is the result of well-meaning but unbiblical recruiters, instead of biblical evangelists. We have even fallen to the point where we have borrowed, on a large scale, techniques of recruitment from the world.”  

“How would you summarize this point about the verb `be born’?”  

“By saying that if the new birth is what many describe it to be, there is no way to express in the language of birth what is happening. Birth would be an extremely clumsy metaphor for what is happening. How does one birth himself?”  

I turned to the next point. “You said that there were several verses that make your point about the new birth.”  

Pastor Spencer nodded. “Turn to James 1:18. Why don’t you read it out loud?”  

“Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures.”  

“Notice it does not say, `Of our own will He brought us forth by the word of truth. . . .”  

“Where is the other passage you had in mind?”  

“John 1:12-13.”  

I turned the pages slowly, thinking hard.  

“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.”  

I looked at Pastor Spencer. “Do you believe there are no legitimate questions about what you are saying?”  

He laughed. “I would have to be an insufferable coxcomb to say something like that. Someone could say, for example, that some passive verbs can be obeyed by us–`be filled with the Spirit’–and he could point out that God gives the right to become His children to those who received Him because they received Him. But of course I believe such objections, while valid, can still be answered.”  

“There is one thing I still don’t understand,” I said. “I began by asking whether or not we are splitting theological hairs in our discussions. What practical difference does this all make? I mean, an average non-Christian isn’t going to know whether the man preaching to him believes what you are saying or not. So why bother with it? Why don’t we just preach the gospel?”  

“To say that the non-Christian could not tell the difference is not to say there is no difference.”  

“What does that mean?”  

“Does this make any difference to the evangelist? How he prays, prepares, preaches?”  

“What difference could it make?”  

“The two preachers have a completely different understanding of their respective tasks. The one believes himself to be going to the sick, supplied by God with the proper medicine, and his task is to persuade the patients to take the medicine. The other man is going, like Ezekiel, to preach in a graveyard.”  

“Ezekiel?”  

“The Lord told him to prophesy to a valley full of dry bones. I dare say that Ezekiel did so with the full knowledge that if something were to happen it would have to be the result of the Spirit’s work. It certainly would not be because of anything Ezekiel did in his own power.”  

“But all evangelists know that God must empower them. . . .”  

“Yes, but to do what? The one seeks to raise consciousness, while the other seeks to raise the dead. All godly evangelists seek to be dependent upon God in the performance of their task; but their respective theologies will determine their understanding of that task. Believe me, I have preached the gospel both ways, and I know the difference it makes.”  

I scratched my chin thoughtfully. “So you are saying that Calvinism will result in powerful evangelism..”  

“No. And please don’t call it Calvinism.”  

I laughed. “I can’t talk about it without words. What do you want me to call it?”  

“Well, we are talking about the new birth. Let’s call it the new birth.”  

“OK, OK. Why did you say `No’?”  

“There have been many Christians with an accurate understanding of the gospel who have done little or nothing with it. There have been others who, like Apollos, have done a lot with a deficient understanding.”  

“So this means. . . .”  

“It means that if a man is empowered by the Spirit of God, more use will be made of him if he has an accurate understanding of the new birth.” Pastor Spencer grinned. “People who compare George Whitefield with John Wesley are being, shall we say, unscientific? The real question is whether Wesley would have been more powerful had he understood this, and whether Whitefield would have been less powerful had he not. And these questions cannot be answered through historical study; half of the comparison you must make didn’t happen. Consequently we are driven to the Scriptures to settle the matter.”  

“Right,” I said, “Back to the Scriptures.”

****

This post is Part 2 in a series of 6. It originally appeared as part of a series in Credenda Agenda.

 

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 1

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
by Douglas Wilson
We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a more historical theological tradition.
*****

I stirred nervously in my seat, and cleared my throat. I was not at all sure I wanted to ask the next question, but I also realized I had to. “You have already told me you have no desire to be called a Calvinist.”

“That is correct,” Pastor Spenser nodded.

“Is this a concern over party labels, or is there any theological area where you disagree with the Calvinists?”

“How do you mean?”

“Well, I was talking with someone at my home church, and he told me something that horrified me. He said that Calvinists believe in something they call limited atonement. They think that Jesus only died for Christians, and not for all men.”

Pastor Spenser laughed, and then said, “I’ll answer your question, if you promise to hear me out.”

I had a sinking feeling that this meant he did believe it, but I nodded my head anyway.

“First, all orthodox Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes that there is an eternal Hell limits the atonement. One group limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit the atonement.”  I nodded, so he went on.

“Secondly, I don’t know who came up with the phrase ‘Limited Atonement‘ to describe this position. He may have been a theological genius, but when it comes to public relations, he must have been a chucklehead.”

“In what way?” I asked.

“One fellow says he believes in a limited atonement, and another says he believes in an unlimited atonement. Which one appears to be doing justice to the Scriptures?”

“The second one, of course.”

Pastor Spenser smiled. “Of course. God so loved the world; Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; One died for all, and so forth.”

I nodded again, wondering where on earth he was going.

“Now suppose we hear the same two fellows, but this time the language is changed. The first says now that he believes in a definite atonement, and the second affirms his belief in an indefinite atonement. Who sounds more biblical now?”

“Well, now the first sounds more biblical.”

“Of course. Christ laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a definite end in view – for a definite group of people.”

“It seems to me that when it is put the first way it shows that the Arminians do justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the second way, it shows that Reformed Christians do justice to the efficient purpose of the redemption. Both sides have their verses.”

“But both sides, if they believe that the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of verses.”

“How can you do that? If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some of the universal passages you quoted earlier?”

“One of the reasons I object so strongly to terms like limited atonement is that it does nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that many have in their minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He died. I have no reason to believe that that number was a small one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with nothing less than a saved world.”

“Do you believe that there will be more people saved than lost?”

“Certainly. It says in 1 John 2:2 that “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

“Wait a minute,” I said. “That just means that every person can be forgiven for their sins if they come to Christ.”

“But that is not what it says. It says that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s wrath is turned aside from the whole world.”

I sat silently for a moment, and Pastor Spenser went on.

“Notice how the verse does not read. It doesn’t say that He is the propitiation for our sins, because we believed, and not only for ours, but He is a potential propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we know they won’t.”

I laughed. “Well, I agree it doesn’t say that.”

“See, the difficulty with verses like this, from the Arminian standpoint, is that they prove too much.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“The Bible teaches that Christ’s death is powerful to save. This power comes through in many of the universal passages. The Arminian position wants the universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words, there is no potential propitiation in 1 John 2:2. It is actual. Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned aside from the world.”

“Does this present any Calvinists with a problem?”

“It surely does. When the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the same time, I believe it is impossible to refer such wonderful universal statements to a tiny snippet of humanity.”

“I don’t understand you.”

“Suppose you went to a football game at your school, and the attendance was spectacular. Would you be lying if you said that the whole student body was there, when in fact Jones was in his room sick?”

I laughed. “No.”

“But suppose you said the whole student body was there, when it was just you and Jones. Would there be a problem now?”

“Certainly.”

“Because. . . ?”

“Because in the first instance my language would not be at all misleading, while in the second instance it would be.”

“Correct. Those who believe what the Bible says about election, but who believe the elect to be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their theological opponents turn glorious texts about a saved world into texts about a world which could be saved, but probably won’t be.”

“So if we continue in this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather eschatology?”

“Well, yes. Although biblical eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would take us off track at the present. Some future discussion perhaps? It should suffice to say that the Bible teaches us about an atonement that is efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the world.”

“And you are saying that this is different than saying Christ died for each and every person.”

“Yes. The problem people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute mean the same thing by for.”

“What do you mean?”

“Given that not all men are saved, contrast these two statements: 1) Christ died for each and every man; 2) Christ died for His people. The word for has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of the atonement.”

“Can you illustrate what you mean?”

“Sure. Suppose you have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about the extent of generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the gift is the same (money), while the generosity varies.”

“OK,” I said. “What is the debate about?”

“In the first view, the philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out in the street, stuffing the money into pockets. He is not giving away opportunity; he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive money?”

I thought for a moment. “So in the area of salvation, you are saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men.”

“You’ve got it.”

“Well, I think I understand it anyway. But you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t accept what you are saying right off. This is going to take some hard thinking and Bible study.”

“That is exactly what it takes. And don’t rush it. Don’t agree to anything until you see it in the Scriptures. Which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?”

****

This post is Part 1 in a series of 6. It originally appeared as a series in Credenda Agenda.

Walk in the Light – Studies in 1 John

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

If it is true, as they say, that one is known by the company he/she keeps, then the first epistle from the Apostle John is really good news for Christians. 

In the prologue of this letter John talks about Christian Fellowship.  He tells us that, if we are in Christ, not only do we have fellowship with other Believers, but with God Himself!   

In the following verses John explains how we experience that fellowship. That’s what he is talking about when he writes about “walking in the light…” (See v. 5-10) 

John begins by talking about God: “God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all. 

John is here succinctly expressing a few important things.   

1.      Theology is important.   

Theology, in the proper sense, is the study about God.  And John demonstrates here that theology, at its best, is practical.  For John, knowledge of God is not an optional accessory for the Christian life; theology is not something that is left for the professionals.  Theology comes first, as a foundation upon which we build our lives, our churches, and our relationships. 

2.      Fellowship begins with considering God.   

John has already expressed that his purpose in writing about our fellowship is “to make our joy complete.”  Here, again, he elaborates about how we experience that fellowship – and he begins by talking about God. 

Wisdom, true spirituality, and real fellowship (that produces joy) always begin with our understanding of who God is. 

This may seem obvious to most of us. But, as Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones suggests:  

“Most of our problems occur precisely because we don’t begin at this point.” 

3.      God is Holy 

J.I. Packer says: “Those who know God have great thoughts of Him.” 

John describes God as being “light”.  Again, it is helpful to remember that John uses word pictures to help us grasp concepts that are important but difficult to define. 

By describing God with the metaphor light, John opens us to consider a wide range of God’s attributes. But while “light” may illustrate many of God’s attributes, most scholars seem to agree that what John has in mind, primarily, is God’s holiness. 

Recognizing, and contemplating God’s holiness is essential to having a relationship with God, and according to John understanding God’s holiness is important for our relationships with others.  

For more reading about God’s Holiness, I suggest: 

Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul 

The Knowldege of the Holy   by A.W. Tozer 

Rooted in Sound Doctrine

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

This is the first of four posts in a series titled Two Contents, Two Realities.  These posts are slightly edited excerpts of a paper delivered by Dr. Francis Schaeffer  as part of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland.

As is often true for Schaeffer, his insights are timeless, and as pertinent today as they were a generation ago. 

******

The first content, if we want to see somethng profound happen in this generation, is clear doctrinal content concerning the central elements of Christianity. There is no use talking about meeting the threat of the coming time or fulfilling our calling in the twenty-first century unless we consciously help each other to have a clear doctrinal position. We must have the Courage to make no compromise with liberal theology and especially neo-orthodox existential theology.

Christianity is a specific body of truth; it is a system, and we must not be ashamed of the word system. There is truth, and we must hold that truth. There will be borderline things in which we have differences among ourselves, but on the central issues there  must be no compromise.

Evangelicals can fall into something which really is not very far from existential theology without knowing it. One form of such “evangelical existentialism” is the attitude, if not the words, “Don’t ask questions, just believe.” This sort of attitude was always wrong, but it is doubly wrong today when we are surrounded with a monolithic consensus which divides reason from non-reason and always puts religious things in the area of non-reason. We must call each other away from this idea. It is not more spiritual to believe without asking questions. It is not more biblical. It is less biblical and eventually it will be less spiritual, because the whole man will not be involved. Consequently, in our evangelism, in our personal work, in our young people’s work, in our ministry wherever we are, those of us who are preachers and are preaching, those of us who are teachers and are teaching, and those of us who are evangelists must be absolutely determined not to fall into the trap of saying or implying, “Don’t ask questions, just believe.” It must be the whole man who comes to understand that the gospel is truth and believes because he is convinced on the basis of good and sufficient reason that it is truth.

Moreover, we must be very careful to emphasize content in our messages. How much content will depend upon the people with whom we are working. In a university setting, the content will be slightly different than in a situation where people are not as educated. Nevertheless, whether we work with a man or woman who is not as educated or whether we work with an intellectual, in all instances the gospel we preach must be rich in content. Certainly, we must be very careful not to fall into the cheap solution (which seems so fascinating at first) of just moving people to make decisions without their really knowing what they are making a decision about. We in L’Abri have had people come to us who have “accepted Christ as Savior” but are not even sure that God exists. They have never been confronted with the question of the existence of God. The acceptance of Christ as Savior was a thing abstracted. It had an insufficient content. In reality, it was just another kind of trip.

Likewise, in a Christian school or college we can try just to religiously move the students on the basis of something apart from the intellect, separated from the academic disciplines and the whole of study. We must say no to this.

What we need to do is to understand our age to be an age of very subtle religious and political manipulation, manipulation by cool communication, communication without content. And as we see all these things, we must lean against them. We have a message of content; there is a system to Christianity. It is not only a system, true enough; it is not a dead scholasticism, true enough; but it is a system in that the person who accepts Christ as his Savior must do so in the midst of the understanding that prior to the creation of the world a personal God on the high level of Trinity existed. And if they “accept Christ as their Savior” and do not understand that God exists as an infinite-personal God, and do not understand that man has been made in the image of God and has value, and do not understand that man’s dilemma is not metaphysical because he is small but moral because man revolted against God in a space-time Fall, in all probability they are not saved. If we “evangelize” by asking for such “acceptance of Christ as Savior,” all we have done is to guarantee they will soon drift away and become harder to reach than ever. Not everybody must know everything – nobody knows everything; if we waited to be saved until we knew everything, nobody would ever be saved – but that is a very different thing from deliberately or thoughtlessly diminishing the content.

Another way to fall into an “evangelical existentialism” is to treat the first half of Genesis the way the existential theologian treats the whole Bible. The first half of Genesis is history, space-time history, the Fall is a space-time Fall, or we have no knowledge of what Jesus came to die for, and we have no way to understand that God is really a good God. Our whole answer to evil rests upon the historic, space-time Fall. There was a time before man revolted against God. The internal evidence of Genesis and the external evidences (given in the New Testament by the way the New Testament speaks of the first half of Genesis) show that the first half of Genesis is really meant to  be space-time history-that is, space and time, the warp and woof of history.

In relationship to this is the danger of diminishing the content of the gospel in a reverse fashion. Bible-believing Christians who stand against the liberal theologian when he would say there are no absolutes in the Bible can make the opposite mistake by adding other elements as though they were equally absolute. In other words, the absolutes of the Word of God can be destroyed in both directions. That is, the liberal theologian can say, “After all, there is no such thing as an absolute, and specifically the Bible does not give absolutes,” or the evangelical can reach over into the middle, class standards and say, “These standards are equal to the absolutes of the Word of God.”

The obvious illustration is how the church treats the counterculture person or a person dressed in a different way. Young people come to us at L’Abri from the ends of the earth, become Christians, and go home and then try to find a Bible-believing church that will accept them without all the change of life-style. I do not mean they try to retain a drug life or a promiscuous sex life which would be against the Word of God. I mean, for example, the way they dress or talk. It is one of my greatest sorrows that the evangelical church often will not accept the person with his lifestyle unless it fits into the middle-class norm in that particular geographical location. And unhappily we often do not realize what we have done when we do this. It is not only a lack of love. We have destroyed the absolutes of the Word of God by making something else equal to God’s absolutes.

If you ask me why the evangelical church has so often been weak in the question of race in the past, I think it was the same. 1  We were surrounded by a culture that had racial prejudices and which did not look at all men as equal, and we allowed this to infiltrate the church. We made taboos apart from and even against the Word of God, and we held them to be equal with the absolutes of the Bible. But to exalt a cultural norm to an absolute is even more destructive today because we are surrounded by a totally relativistic society. As we make other things equal to the absolutes of the Word of God, it may not be more sinful in the sight of God than it was in the past, but it is more destructive. Consequently, when we talk about content, we are talking about something very practical indeed. We must have a strong, strong doctrinal content.

And as we have a strong doctrinal content, we must practice the content, practice the truth we say we believe. We must exhibit to our own children and to the watching world that we take truth seriously. It will not do in a relativistic age to say that we believe in truth and fail to practice that truth in places where it may be observed and where it is costly. We, as Christians, say we believe that truth exists. We say we have truth from the Bible. And we say we can give that truth to other men in propositional, verbalized form and they may have that truth. This is exactly what the gospel claims and this is what we claim. But then we are surrounded by a relativistic age. Do you think for a moment we will have credibility if we say we believe the truth and yet do not practice the truth in religious matters? If we do not do this, we cannot expect for a moment that the tough-minded, twenty-first century young person (including our own young people) will take us seriously when we say, “here is truth” when they are surrounded by a totally monolithic consensus that truth does not exist.

Consider an example in the academic world. One girl who was teaching in one of the major universities of Britain was a real Christian and very bright. She was teaching in a sociology department whose head was a behaviorist, and he told her she had to teach in the framework of behaviorism or lose her post. Suddenly she was confronted with the question of the practice of truth. She said no, she could not teach behaviorism, and she lost her post. This is what I mean by practicing truth when it is costly. And this will come in many, many places and in many, many ways. It will come in the area of sexual life forms, being surrounded by permissive sexualists and asexuality. We must be careful by the grace of God to practice what we say the Bible teaches–the one-man, one-woman relationship–or we are destroying the truth that we say we believe. And this practicing will include church discipline where it is necessary.

But nowhere is practicing the truth more important than in the area of religious cooperation. If I say that Christianity is really eternal truth, and the liberal theologian is wrong–so wrong that he is teaching that which is contrary to the Word of God–and then on any basis (including for the sake of evangelism) I am willing publicly to act as though that man’s religious position is the same as my own, I have destroyed the practice of truth which my generation can expect from me and which it will demand of me if I am to have credibility. How will we have a credibility in a relativistic age if we practice religious cooperation with men who in their books and lectures make very plain that they believe nothing (or practically nothing) of the content set forth in Scripture?

Incidentally, almost certainly if we have a latitudinarianism in religious cooperation, the next generation will have a latitudinarianism in doctrine, and specifically a weakness toward the Bible. We are seeing this happen in parts of evangelicalism as well. We must have the courage to take a clear position.2

But let us beware. We certainly must not take every one of our small secondary distinctives and elevate them to be the point where we refuse to have fellowship on any level with those who do not hold them. It is the central things of the Word of God which make Christianity Christianity. These we must hold tenaciously, and, even when it is costly for us and even when we must cry, we must maintain that there is not only an antithesis of truth, but an antithesis that is observable in practice. Out of a loyalty to the infinite-personal God who is there and who has spoken in Scripture, and out of compassion for our own young people and others, we who are evangelicals dare not take a halfway position concerning truth or the practice of truth.

Thus, with regard to the first content there are three things to recognize: first, there must be a strong emphasis on content; second, there must be a strong emphasis on the propositional nature of the Bible, especially the early chapters of Genesis; and third, there must be a strong emphasis on the practice of truth. We can talk about methods, we can stir each other up, we can call each other to all kinds of action, but unless it is rooted in a strong Christian base in the area of content and the practice of truth, we build on sand and add to the confusion of our day.

Tough Questions from a Pre-Teen Girl

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

The following are answers to questions asked by a then-12 year old girl.  This young lady had had a very, very difficult life, but was very bright and determined.   At the time she wrote the note to me asking these questions, she had only recently come to live with her father – a godly man.  Now a teenager, she has grown into a beautiful and sharp young woman.

She has given her permission to use our correspondence for this post.       

****************

1.      Why do people look so depressing, sad, and miserable when we pray? 

This is a good question.  There is no good reason to be sad & miserable when we pray, but I think you are right that sometimes we look that way.   

I guess the reason is that people want to be reverent, or to be serious, when they approach our Holy God.  This is a good thing, since the Bible calls us to “Fear the Lord”.  (Deuteronomy 6:13; Proverbs 9:10)   BUT, if Christians do not have joy as they pray, then they are forgetting that God loves us; that He is our Father, and wants us to come to him with joy & thanksgiving.  We are unbalanced between Fearing God & Loving God.  

 2.      Why does God choose some people, but not all, to spread His Word? 

I am guessing that you have two questions combined here.   

First, Why does God not call everyone to be a Christian?  The answer is that everyone is to hear the call to follow Christ, but only those God chooses are able to become Christians.  Why does he choose some but not others? We don’t know. 

Second, Why are not all Christians called to spread his Word?  The answer: All are called to spread his Word, by teaching and by our actions.  Some are called to spread his Word to other countries. Some are called to spread his Word by preaching in the church. Some to spread it by teaching Sunday school. Others are called to spread it to their friends, neighbors, and family.  Not everyone does it, but all are called to spread the Word somewhere & somehow.  

3.      Why did God flood the earth when not everybody was being bad? 

Romans 3:10 and 3:23 tell us that there is no one who is good.  This is difficult to hear, but it is true. It is also important to understand my answer to your question.  

If you read Genesis 6:5 it says “The Lord saw …man’s wickedness…” There was no one good on the earth, everyone was being bad. Romans 6:23 says: “The wages of sin is death.”  This means that anyone & everyone who sins deserves death – in this case by drowning in a flood.   

In Genesis 6:8-9 it says “Noah found favor in God’s eyes…” and “…he walked with God”.  This does not mean that Noah was perfect, and that he was not doing bad – though he was better than most men. (Remember Romans 3:23 “All sinned… fall short of the glory of God.”) That he “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” means that God chose to love him even though he was a sinner.  Genesis 6:9 says: “Noah was a righteous man”… this means that he believed in God, and trusted God for his salvation. Noah did not believe he was good enough, and knew he needed God’s grace.  (Romans 1:17 tells us that righteousness comes by faith. Hebrews 11:6 says: “Without faith it is impossible to please God…”)   

Now the great thing about this is that God does the same thing with us.  You & I, and everyone else, are sinners.  We may be better than many people, but we are still not perfect like God wants us to be. 

But read Romans 5:6-8… Is that great or what?!! 

The important thing, though, is to believe what God has provided for our salvation from his punishment.  For Noah it was the Ark, but really it was a Savior.  For us (and for Noah, too, really) it is Jesus – a person not a boat! 

Read 1 John 5, and it shows the importance of believing & trusting in Jesus for our salvation and forgiveness of our sin.   

(A guy named Fritz Ridenhour has written a cool book for teenagers, How to Be a Christian Without Being Religious. It is about all this Romans stuff.  I have a copy if you want to borrow it from me.) 

4.      Why does God make some peoples’ lives worse than others? 

This is a difficult question, and I am so sorry that you have had some very hard things happen in your life.  But the best way I can answer this is in two ways.  

First, sin is in this world and hurts people –both those who sin and those they sin against.  It will continue to hurt people until Jesus returns to take us with Him.  This does not mean that God does not love us or care for us, or that he will not protect us.  He does, and He shows it all the time.  But what he also does is remind us that someday soon he will take us where there is no sin.   

Look at it this way, before your Dad had you with him, he loved you, and cared for you. He gave you some good times, even though some bad things were happening around you. But he also told you that he wanted you to live with him.  Even before you got to live with him you had both good & bad times. You looked forward to when you could be with him, and this gave you hope.  Now that you have moved in with him many of the bad things are away from you.  God continues to give us this same type hope when he reminds us of heaven – except all bad things will be away from us in Heaven. Until then our lives will be mixed with good and bad.   

Why are some worse than others? That I do not know. The book of Job is a good example of your question, but God does not totally answer it.  God simply says we should trust him, because we know He is good.   

Second, some of our hardships come from decisions we make. There are consequences to our actions. If you commit a crime, you may go to jail. If unmarried teenagers are sexually active a pregnancy may result. 

But even the consequences to our own actions are not all bad.  Hebrews 12:6 says: “The Lord disciplines those He loves.”  And please read 1 Peter 1:3-9 for encouragement. 

5.      How does God choose when He wants your life to be over? 

That is a mystery, but we know He is good and works out everything for His glory and the good of those who trust him.  (Read Romans 8:28) 

6.      How is God with every church in America at one time? (In the whole world?) 

This is another mystery. But God is a Spirit, and is not limited as we are to space.   

7.      If Jesus knew that he was gonna die why didn’t he run or hide? 

This is one of the amazing things about the love Jesus has for us!  Jesus indeed did feel the very things that we might suppose he would.  Matthew 26:36-39 records that in anticipation of his crucifixion he said, “My soul overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death…” and praying, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” What he meant by cup is “take away the wrath I will have to feel”.  But amazingly Jesus said, “Yet not my will, but your will be done.” In other words, “Whatever you want, and whatever it takes, Father, I will do it!”   

So why did he do it?  Romans 5:8 says, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  1 John 3:16 says, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.”  So the answer to your question is that Jesus felt like running away, but he loved us so much he would rather do what God wanted him to do than to save his own life.  I am always amazed that I am loved that much – and so are you! 

8.      Why does God make some people bad and some people good? 

Romans 3:12 says, “…there is no one who does good, not even one.”  So it is important to realize that any goodness we think we see in ourselves or others needs to be compared to the holiness and perfection of Jesus. None of us measures up. 

However, it is true that God allows some to act worse than others.  Why does he keep some from certain sin, and allow others to hurt people?  I don’t know. I only know that he is good, and that apart from his salvation & grace I would do more evil, and be condemned for it. But, in his grace, I do some good, and by faith all of the things Jesus did are counted as if I did them.  

9.      Why does God make some people cute and some people ugly? 

Proverbs 31:30 says: “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting…”  So before answering about God’s reasons, it is important to realize that standards of beauty are different from culture to culture, and from generation to generation.  Proverbs tells us both that those who have physical beauty (or cute-ness) may eventually no longer be considered beautiful or cute, and that even if beauty were maintained there is no guarantee others would think so as perceptions change.  So to answer your question with a question: What is cute? 

However, the more direct answer is that God makes all people as he sees fit.  It is the real beauty, what a person is, that God is most concerned with. And that is what he wants us to be more concerned with.   

 10. If we are not supposed to re-write the Bible, then why do people make new copies? 

God commands us not to add anything to what he has told us, nor to take anything away from what he tells us.  That is what is meant by not re-writing the Bible.  However, since the Bible is to go to many different people, and in many different languages, it is appropriate that his Word be translated into different languages. 

As for the many English versions, they all say essentially the same thing, but just have a different way of saying it.  This is because they were translated by different people, in different generations.   

It is true that some people make different emphasis because of the way they read the different words. But people do the same thing even using the same translations.  People are limited in knowledge, and tend to filter everything through their own experience.  The Scripture does not say different things to different people. God always has one meaning. Our responsibility is to be faithful to determine what that is.  One day, however, all our disagreements will be settled, and we will know without question what the Scriptures mean.  (Read about the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12) 

11.      If God knew that Adam & Eve were gonna’ sin why did he put that Tree of Good & Evil in the middle of the Garden? 

Some think God was being mean, to put that tree there but telling Adam not to eat from it. But if you read the story, God told him he could eat from any of the many other trees. So it is important to see first that God is good and generous. He is not mean and selfish.   

But why did God put that tree there?  My short answer is this: To show us how much he really loved us.

While many people may disagree with me, let me try to simply explain.  

Good and evil both existed, though Adam did not know anything about evil, and evil did not hurt him.  God, in love, warned Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. Why would he need to know more?  But evil still existed, as the opposite of Good.   

It also was a way to test man’s love for God. Was God enough for Adam? Or would Adam want to “know” stuff apart from God?  It was not intended to tempt Adam, though that possibility existed. It was a way for Adam to know his own heart. 

Now, here is how God’s love is shown… It is easy to love someone who is good.  It is difficult to love someone who is not good; someone who hates you.  By eating from that Tree, Adam & Eve rebelled against God. In essence they said: “I hate you… you are not enough for me.”  But they had no excuse.  They had everything they needed in and from God. But they wanted more.   

But God still loved them. So instead of killing them and starting over, he revealed a plan how he would win them back… A plan that so clearly shows God’s love, and wisdom, and grace, that it is glorious!  He would redeem them back by sending his own Son to pay the price of their sin – and all the sin that would come from that first sin! (Genesis 3:15 is the first promise of Jesus.)   

So God allowed the Tree to be there so that if – when – they disobeyed for no reason, he could prove His  justice, wisdom, kindness, and how much he loved us.

12.    Why does God let some people be poor and some rich? 

I don’t know why he chooses some to be rich, and others to be poor.  But I do know that he says that it is hard for rich people to become Christians.  (Matthew 19:24)  Because, I suppose, rich people trust in themselves and their money for everything, and not on Jesus Christ.  But God also blesses the poor in a very important way. James 2:5 says: 

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the worldto be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 

(Read: Luke 4:18; Luke 6:20; Luke 14:13) 

It is important to remember that almost everyone in the USA is rich compared to most people in the world. You may not feel as rich as other people you know, but compared to people in other countries, you are.  And it is also important to remember that Jesus was born poor.  But 2 Corinthians 8:9 says:  

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. 

13.  Why did God let Saddam attack America? 

Why does God let there be war? War is a result of sin in the hearts of man.

James 4:1-2 says: 

What causes fights and quarrels among you?Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet,but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. 

War is just bigger; when groups or countries fight against each other.  Saddam is just one man who in this age has chosen to go to war in a big way.  In the past there have been other men, like Hitler, who started wars. 

Why did it happen to America?  I can only ask: Why not?  Because of Sin we all experience trials & hardships in this life.  (1 Peter 1:6)  Our country has largely been spared, but God never promises that no hardship will come; only that He will see us through.  And, while we don’t like to admit it, Americans have sin that offends people.  That does not justify the killing of the people on the planes or in New York, but we must remember it is a part of living in a fallen world.   

However, when Jesus returns, all will be well for those who trust Him.

14. Why doesn’t God come to earth right now?  What is God waiting for? 

The Disciples asked this very question in Acts 1.  Jesus’ answer was that “only God knows.” 

I don’t know why He has not yet returned.  But I do know He will return when He is ready; when the time is just right.

15. Why do people make up lies about how the universe was made? 

Lying or not, people are wrong when they deny that God created the world from nothing, in six days, and all very good.  Some are not “lying” because they have been deceived.  But they are no less wrong. 

On the other hand, sin leads to hard hearts; hard hearts lead to hating God. Hating God leads to pretending he does not exist.  And some people, because they are still in sin, are trying to pretend God does not exist. And to them if God doesn’t exist, then he cannot have created the universe.   

The problem for them is, that God is there, and He did create all things; and he continues to sustain all things.

16. Why doesn’t everybody believe in Christ?  Why doesn’t God make everybody believe in Him? 

Sin prevents people from believing. The Bible calls people “Dead in sin.”  Dead people can do nothing to help themselves do or believe anything.  The amazing thing is that some of us do believe. And that is because God chose us, and has made us alive. He has given us faith to believe; it is a gift. (Ephesians 2:8)  (Read Ezekiel 37 – Ezekiel preached in a grave yard, and the dead bones came to life!!) 

Why doesn’t God make everyone believe? I cannot answer that.  I only know that all deserve death (Romans 6:23); that those who are condemned get what they deserve (and what we deserve); and that we who are saved do not deserve it (we are no better, smarter, cuter, etc.), but have been given a gift that glorifies God’s justice & grace.  This is known as the Doctrine of Election.    

17. Why does God give more talent to some people than others? 

While all people are equally created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and thus are equal in value, not everybody is the same.  Like wealth and beauty, God chooses who he gives certain talents to. It is not because they are deserved, but just because he chooses.  We don’t know “why” he does what he does. We only know that he is good, and does what is good.  Because he is good, it is right; it is not “unfair”.   

But it is also important to know that God gives to each person talent; and to each Christian Spiritual gifts. Everyone has them, uniquely given by God.  We are told to learn what our gifts & talents are, to use them wisely for the benefit of others and the glory of God.  We are also told that those who use them wisely may be given more, while those who do not use them wisely may loose them.     

18. Do you have to go to school in Heaven? 

In heaven you will have all knowledge.  You will not know everything God knows, but you will know everything you need to know. So… I don’t see any reason to go to school in heaven…except to have fun! 

19. Why did God make some teachers meaner than others? (Like Mrs. Quigley?!) 

While I can’t comment about Mrs. Quigley, I can comment in general. Some teachers are mean because they have hard hearts, caused by sin.  They express meanness instead of expressing love.  They need to be prayed for, just as Jesus said to “pray for your enemies”.  (Matthew 5:44) 

On the other hand, sometimes we just think people are mean when, because they really love us, they are firm & demanding.  Good parents are the best example. When they “punish” or discipline us, it is because they love us and want for us to know right from wrong.  Likewise, a good teacher wants you to learn all you can learn, and will push you to do so. We pray for these people too – thanking God for putting them in our lives.   

The hard part is being able to tell the difference.   

No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful.Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peacefor those who have been trained by it.    –Hebrews 12:11

He who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever heeds correction gains understanding.              –Proverbs 15:32 

*NOTE: Read Proverbs 10:17; 12:1; 13:24; and Hebrews 12 

20.   How does God let parents know what to name their baby? 

There are some cases in the Bible where God specifically told parents what to name their babies.  In many cultures names have some significance about the person, but not always.  But the Bible does not command anything about names, so parents are free to choose whatever name they like for their children.   

21. Does God not let you into Heaven if you didn’t get baptized?  If he doesn’t, why doesn’t he let me get baptized? 

While God does command us to be baptized, the baptism is not what saves us.  The baptism is required to be part of the church on earth – of which God wants all Christians to be members.  But it is possible to go to heaven without having been baptized.  This should be unusual, but it is very possible.  (If you want to talk more about baptism, I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.  Hopefully we can have you get baptized very soon.) 

22. What does Satan look like? Does anybody know? 

Satan is deceitful, but nobody knows what he looks like.  While because of his evil he is the epitome of ugly, Ezekiel 28:12 says Satan was created “…perfect in beauty.”  How he has fallen! 

23. What does Jesus look like? 

There are no records as to what Jesus actually looked like.  Interestingly, especially in light of the description that Satan was created in beauty, Isaiah 53:2 records of Jesus: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”  This does not mean that Jesus was necessarily an ugly-looking man, but many believe he was physically unattractive, but nevertheless a beautiful man. (Read Isaiah 52:14, and it suggests that the absence of beauty was after his beating and torture… “disfigured”) 

24.    How will we know when Jesus comes to Earth if we don’t know what he looks like? 

The best answer I can give is that when Jesus comes “riding in the clouds” (Psalm 104:3) all who believe in him will recognize him.  Revelation 19:11-16 is a picture (probably symbolic) that is unforgettable & recognizable.  But the best answer, I believe, comes simply from Jesus: “My sheep listen to my voice.”  (John 10:27)   Like a sheep recognizes the voice of the shepherd, so will those belonging to Jesus somehow recognize his voice.  

25. What if somebody was not from a family that didn’t believe in Jesus but wanted to be a Christian? How do they become one? 

While God has established a Covenant with his people, and blesses the households of believers who are faithful to that Covenant, God must save each person.  One is not a Christian because he or she grows up in a Christian home. Each child must learn & understand that he/she is a sinner in need of a savior, and that Jesus is that Savior.  He died on the Cross to take our sin; and he was Resurrected to give us Faith to believe.  It is by repenting of our sin & Faith in what Jesus did for us that we become Christians.   

For a person from outside a Christian home to become a Christian, he/she must learn & understand the same thing.  However, it will not come from their parents. They will hear about Jesus through a friend (or a Missionary).  But when they believe they will be every bit as much a Christian as the believing person who comes from a Christian home.   

NOTE: You can be that “friend” to those at your school. (Matthew 28:18-20) 

26. Why does everybody look so sad during Communion? 

This is another good question, similar to the one you asked about prayer.  However, in communion there may be more reason to look sad, though it should also bring joy.   

When we come to the table we are reminded that we are sinners, and that Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sin. (Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23) That should make us sad, because someone else “got in trouble” because of something we did.  Jesus took our punishment, although he was good. He is the only one who is.  But even after we become Christians, and are forgiven our sin, we still sin. (1 John 1:8)  And so being reminded of this, we may feel sad. 

On the other hand, God the Father demonstrated his love for us by sending his Son; and Jesus demonstrated his love for us by coming (Romans 5:6-8; Philippians 2:5-11).  He died on the Cross to pay what we were powerless to pay. We have been set free. He loves us! So for that, we should feel good.   

Each time we come to the table we declare that. (1 Corinthians 11:26)  And so we may feel both sad & happy at the same time.  But in the end, we should be happy, because the truth of God’s Grace is Amazing & Great! 

27. Why are only men allowed to be Elders, Deacons, and Pastors? 

First, it is important for you to know that a Pastor is an Elder – no more, no less.  A Deacon is different, but he is important. But this is another good question.  Many people do not believe this, though the Bible teaches about this.   

In 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1 God, through Apostle Paul, gives us the requirements for these two offices.  In each the requirement is that the person be a godly man.  It is not because women are not good enough, or smart enough, or not important. It is just the way God created things. However, some people have used this to believe that women are not supposed to do important things in the church. That is wrong.  And as you grow up, you should use all your gifts & talents in the church, for God’s glory and the good of others.   

So, the short answer is, for whatever his reasons, that’s the way God set it up.  (We can talk more about this if you want more info.)

I hope these answers to your questions helped.