Another passage that has often hit me is John 5:24:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24 (NAB)
Notice, again, true faith changes something permanently. The believer “has eternal life,” “will not come to condemnation,” and, “has passed from death to life.” It’s interesting to note that in the Greek text (the original text John wrote this in), the verb “passed” is in the perfect tense. This tense refers to a completed state. It’s a done deal.
One other St. John discussion is worth noting: John 6:28-29:
"So they said to him, 'What can we do to accomplish the works of God?' 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." John 6:28-29 (NAB)
The main deal, the thing God looks at as the saving condition is belief--that is, life-altering faith.
One of the rules I use in interpreting the Bible is “Use clear passages to interpret confusing passages.” That is to say, some passages in Scripture are like the picture on the box and some are like jigsaw puzzle pieces in the box. Use the picture to figure out the puzzle pieces. Picture passages are clear. They’re very easy to understand without adding a lot of interpretation. If you never read the Bible and were an unbeliever and read these passages, you’d come away thinking, “The Bible teaches that eternal life is given to you when you believe.”
Soulman: Provider of Soul Food.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Can I Lose Salvation?
Years ago, I led a class on Catholicism and Evangelicalism at my church. I have many friends and family who are Catholic, so I read all of Vatican II plus a number of other official Roman Catholic documents. I also took a course on it in my doctoral program. I loved studying it and came away with a great appreciation for my brothers and sisters (or to use Vatican terminology, our separated brethren) in the Catholic Church. At any rate, when I did the class, a nice woman who was Roman Catholic actually came to my church to take the course. She was very engaging in the discussions and asked some excellent questions. Eventually, she wrote me a lengthy letter asking for clarification on the issue of salvation and works. Over the next several posts, I will be sharing my answers to her questions. I suspect that they are questions that most of us, in some form or another, have asked. I hope this blesses you as much as it did me in writing it.
Born Again
Let’s begin with the classic, “football game verse,” which is probably the most famous verse in the Bible: John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." John 3:16 (NAB)
Notice, the passage begins with God’s love (“God so loved”), followed by grace (“that he gave his only Son”), followed by faith (“everyone who believes in him”), followed by eternal life (“not perish . . . eternal life”).
The requirement in the passage for eternal life is faith. Not a superficial profession, but a true faith, a life-altering trust in God, alone, for salvation. Now, what’s the context of the passage? It’s a theological discussion Jesus is having with Nicodemas, a Pharisee who knew his theology well and thought that people were saved by doing good works. And Jesus says something remarkable to him. Look at John 3:3:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." John 3:3 (NAB)
The NIV translates “born from above” as “born again.” Either way, the clear idea is that there is a new birth that happens. Something is radically changed. This person is re-created.
Nicodemas is stunned by this and asks the following:
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" John 3:4 (NAB)
Then Jesus launches into his discussion about belief and how the Holy Spirit actually causes someone to be born again. So here’s the question. If salvation is given at the moment of belief as John 3:16 suggests, and the Spirit causes such a change in the heart of that person that he/she is described as “born again,” can a person become “unborn” by his/her bad works and undo what the Spirit has done in his/her heart?
I don’t think so. The text speaks in permanent images. It says that we receive “eternal” life at the point of belief. Not “temporary life that could turn into eternal life if you keep your nose clean.” The text also presents the state of salvation as a constitutional, permanent change: “born.” It’s permanent. Birth is not reversible.
However, it also suggests that this new state of salvation is more than just a mere profession accompanied by smells, bells, and sprinkles (or, in our case, dunks and saw dust trails). There’s a life-altering change. Once I’ve truly believed, my heart is changed. I’ve been born again and, while I will struggle with the temptations of sin and fall at times, I have been altered, at the soul level, to do good works.
Born Again
Let’s begin with the classic, “football game verse,” which is probably the most famous verse in the Bible: John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." John 3:16 (NAB)
Notice, the passage begins with God’s love (“God so loved”), followed by grace (“that he gave his only Son”), followed by faith (“everyone who believes in him”), followed by eternal life (“not perish . . . eternal life”).
The requirement in the passage for eternal life is faith. Not a superficial profession, but a true faith, a life-altering trust in God, alone, for salvation. Now, what’s the context of the passage? It’s a theological discussion Jesus is having with Nicodemas, a Pharisee who knew his theology well and thought that people were saved by doing good works. And Jesus says something remarkable to him. Look at John 3:3:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." John 3:3 (NAB)
The NIV translates “born from above” as “born again.” Either way, the clear idea is that there is a new birth that happens. Something is radically changed. This person is re-created.
Nicodemas is stunned by this and asks the following:
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" John 3:4 (NAB)
Then Jesus launches into his discussion about belief and how the Holy Spirit actually causes someone to be born again. So here’s the question. If salvation is given at the moment of belief as John 3:16 suggests, and the Spirit causes such a change in the heart of that person that he/she is described as “born again,” can a person become “unborn” by his/her bad works and undo what the Spirit has done in his/her heart?
I don’t think so. The text speaks in permanent images. It says that we receive “eternal” life at the point of belief. Not “temporary life that could turn into eternal life if you keep your nose clean.” The text also presents the state of salvation as a constitutional, permanent change: “born.” It’s permanent. Birth is not reversible.
However, it also suggests that this new state of salvation is more than just a mere profession accompanied by smells, bells, and sprinkles (or, in our case, dunks and saw dust trails). There’s a life-altering change. Once I’ve truly believed, my heart is changed. I’ve been born again and, while I will struggle with the temptations of sin and fall at times, I have been altered, at the soul level, to do good works.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Mass Murder and Christmas
The following is the intro to the sermon I preached on 12/16/12 shortly after the mass murder of Sandy Hook Elementary. It addresses why I think Christmas is more important now than at any time in my life. If you'd like to hear the sermon in its entirety, you can listen to it at: http://firstfreerockford.org/sermons.htm#2012
Good Morning Everyone. As you know, a tragedy occurred in Connecticut that has shaken our nation. As a father of four, my heart is very heavy. I’ve felt shock, rage, frustration, and an almost unbearable sense of sadness for the families that lost those children. I don’t know about you, but I can barely watch the news. I saw a picture of a mother and father in the aftermath that immediately caused me to weep because their despair was so evident. I’ve been crying daily over all of this. How about you? Has this hit you as hard as it has me? It’s a terrible, terrible national wound.
You know, this morning, I was going to give you a cheerful Christmas message. It was going to be fun and engaging and inspiring. But after what happened on Friday (which, by the way, I heard about right after I preached at our Mother’s Day Out program and was with little kids) I decided to change this message. I even considered not preaching about Christmas at all because, what does mass murder have to do with Christmas? Right? How do you reconcile this horrific event with Christmas? That seems impossible.
But then it occurred to me. The first Christmas was not as peaceful as we tend to think. In actuality, the first Christmas was also surrounded by a tremendous amount of violence. In Rev. 12, we’re told that when Jesus was born, Satan himself tried to destroy Him. The text describes Satan as a murderous fiery dragon, a monster, who, on that first Christmas, tried to devour the Christ child. We’re told in the Gospel of Matthew that one of the ways Satan tried to do this was through the mass murder of children. Right after the wise men visit Jesus, King Herod issues an executive order that all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem be killed. And a massacre occurs, but Jesus survives.
When we celebrate Christmas, we tend to ignore the mass murder associated with Christ’s birth and the cruel, demonic creature intent on destroying all things precious and good in the world. I’ve seen many Nativity scenes. I’ve seen Mary and Joseph and the baby and the star. I’ve seen shepherds and sheep and wise men. But I’ve never seen in the background a massive dragon seething with filth and wickedness murdering children. That is, until Friday. We saw him at Sandy Hook and we’ve all been traumatized.
However, I want to tell you something else we will see in the days ahead. Just like at the first Christmas and at the first Easter, there may have been a monster, but there was also a King. And, like at the first Christmas and the first Easter, the King will win. I agree with one commentator who said, “Jesus didn’t go to that school with guns, but He will go to those families and all who have suffered loss.” And I guarantee you He did go to those children and this season, they are celebrating Christmas not by a manger, but in a Mansion in Heaven. Jesus wins and will win again. And that’s why Christmas, maybe more than any other time in my life, is so crucial. Christmas tells us that no matter how evil or horrendouos our world becomes, Christ wins and will win again. If He came the first time, He will keep His promise and come the second time and all this mess will be cleaned up. And, just as He defeated evil through love, we too must defeat evil today through love. This Christmas, spread more love than usual. Touch the world with the reality of a God that conquers death and takes children into His home. Remind a hurting, wounded world that God is real.
Good Morning Everyone. As you know, a tragedy occurred in Connecticut that has shaken our nation. As a father of four, my heart is very heavy. I’ve felt shock, rage, frustration, and an almost unbearable sense of sadness for the families that lost those children. I don’t know about you, but I can barely watch the news. I saw a picture of a mother and father in the aftermath that immediately caused me to weep because their despair was so evident. I’ve been crying daily over all of this. How about you? Has this hit you as hard as it has me? It’s a terrible, terrible national wound.
You know, this morning, I was going to give you a cheerful Christmas message. It was going to be fun and engaging and inspiring. But after what happened on Friday (which, by the way, I heard about right after I preached at our Mother’s Day Out program and was with little kids) I decided to change this message. I even considered not preaching about Christmas at all because, what does mass murder have to do with Christmas? Right? How do you reconcile this horrific event with Christmas? That seems impossible.
But then it occurred to me. The first Christmas was not as peaceful as we tend to think. In actuality, the first Christmas was also surrounded by a tremendous amount of violence. In Rev. 12, we’re told that when Jesus was born, Satan himself tried to destroy Him. The text describes Satan as a murderous fiery dragon, a monster, who, on that first Christmas, tried to devour the Christ child. We’re told in the Gospel of Matthew that one of the ways Satan tried to do this was through the mass murder of children. Right after the wise men visit Jesus, King Herod issues an executive order that all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem be killed. And a massacre occurs, but Jesus survives.
When we celebrate Christmas, we tend to ignore the mass murder associated with Christ’s birth and the cruel, demonic creature intent on destroying all things precious and good in the world. I’ve seen many Nativity scenes. I’ve seen Mary and Joseph and the baby and the star. I’ve seen shepherds and sheep and wise men. But I’ve never seen in the background a massive dragon seething with filth and wickedness murdering children. That is, until Friday. We saw him at Sandy Hook and we’ve all been traumatized.
However, I want to tell you something else we will see in the days ahead. Just like at the first Christmas and at the first Easter, there may have been a monster, but there was also a King. And, like at the first Christmas and the first Easter, the King will win. I agree with one commentator who said, “Jesus didn’t go to that school with guns, but He will go to those families and all who have suffered loss.” And I guarantee you He did go to those children and this season, they are celebrating Christmas not by a manger, but in a Mansion in Heaven. Jesus wins and will win again. And that’s why Christmas, maybe more than any other time in my life, is so crucial. Christmas tells us that no matter how evil or horrendouos our world becomes, Christ wins and will win again. If He came the first time, He will keep His promise and come the second time and all this mess will be cleaned up. And, just as He defeated evil through love, we too must defeat evil today through love. This Christmas, spread more love than usual. Touch the world with the reality of a God that conquers death and takes children into His home. Remind a hurting, wounded world that God is real.
Friday, November 30, 2012
In-Womb Fighting
Currently, I'm preaching a series out of the Book of Genesis entitled "Start." One of the stories I'll hit is of Jacob and Esau, twins who had a terrible sibling rivalry and whose descendants, to this day, continue to have conflict (i.e. the Israeli/Arab conflict). What's interesting is that the rivalry starts in the womb of their mother, Rebekah. Gen. 25:22 states that her twin boys, "struggled together within her." Later on we're told that when Esau, the older, is born, he emerges from the womb with Jacob's "hand holding on to Esau's heel." I point this out because people have undoubtedly accused the Bible of manufacturing this story. Surely two babies in the womb aren't developed enough to fight one another. This is simply mythology. Yet, once again, the Bible is proven to be plausible through scientific discovery. Notice the recent video of twins fighting in their mother's womb captured by a modern sonogram in the following link.
http://wtvr.com/2012/11/30/sibling-rivalry-video-shows-twins-fighting-in-the-womb/
http://wtvr.com/2012/11/30/sibling-rivalry-video-shows-twins-fighting-in-the-womb/
Friday, November 9, 2012
How Old is the Earth?
Recently, I preached a message on Genesis 1 and explained the idea that Satan seems to have rebelled against God between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. But I did not say that I held to the so-called "Gap Theory." I have come to the conclusion that the earth of v. 2 is much different than the earth of v. 1. Verse 1 seems to me to be a proclamation about how everything was made: God made it! He creates the universe, "the heavens and the earth," and it is good. God doesn't tell us when the universe was created in the verse, however. But the earth of v. 2 is different. It has ominous qualities. It's chaotic, empty, a waste, and has darkness over it (and God imediately begins to renovate the earth to make it good again, just like He is doing with all who call upon Him as Lord--we're all going to be renovated and be "very good" one day!). All of this chaotic imagery of v. 2 is used elsewhere in Scripture to suggest the results of judgment (ex. Jer. 4:23-28). I'm not sure if there is a huge gap between the two verses, however. It's possible that the fall of Satan could have happened instantly. It's also possible it could have happened before the entire chapter and v. 1 is simply a summary statement about creation telling us that God made it all at some point in time and then the text quickly moves into the final phase of that full creation starting with v. 2. Or, as many of my Dallas Seminary professors would assert, v. 1 could be the the beginning of the first day and the phrase "heavens and earth" are describing the earth and its sky. In this view, we are being told in Genesis just about the creation of the current earth and not the entire universe, with the idea that Satan caused the chaos before v. 1. This view can be called the pre-creation chaos view and it asserts that the term "in the beginning" means the beginning of our planet as it is. In other words, Gen. is talking about "in the beginning of God's renovation of the earth as we know it," leaving the possibility that Genesis is not discussing the beginning of all time (although they argue that the Bible elsewhere certainly teaches God created everything out of nothing at the absolute beginning). Are you getting confused? Don't worry about it. Great Bible scholars with great arguments differ on these questions. All of this, it seems to me, is splitting hairs and misses the point. I hold to the position that v. 1 is a big view of everything and then the focus shifts to a broken, chaotic earth damaged by Satan's fall in v. 2. I have a number of reasons for holding to this view, but they can be discussed elsewhere and are not crucially important to the Genesis account. Moses is not focusing on Satan or the time of Earth's creation. His focus is on God as our Creator and His care in preparing a home for us.
My view is pretty fluid on some of this due to so many scholars who are much smarter than me and disagree on these issues. I've landed on a view, but am open to the possibility that I could be mistaken (by the way, I'm like this with my end times picture as well). I think the following article from the brilliant theologian, Norm Geisler, may prove helpful to you as you weigh the arguments.
The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution
by Dr. Norman Geisler
Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianity on whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical and theological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolution and creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two major groups: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. (The former are often called progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationism is championed by Hugh Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania.
Young-Earth Creationism
The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours–six successive 24-hour days–while old-earth (progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:
(1) placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and local Creation);
(2) placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called "gap" views);
(3) making the "days" of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
(4) allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1(called "alternate day-age views); or
(5) making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called "revelatory day" views).
There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.
Old-Earth Creationism
Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old-earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the originally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, prominent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.
Theistic Evolution
Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life. All theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act—the act of creating the physical universe from nothing. However, this may more properly be called deistic evolution, since there are no miracles involved after the first act of Creation.
Most theistic evolutionists hold to at least two acts of Creation: (1) the creation of matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that, allegedly, every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Some theistic evolutionists do insist that God directly created the first soul in the long-evolved primate to make it truly human and in His image….
Areas of Agreement Between Young- and Old-Earth Creationists
Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things.
Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life
Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).
Opposition to Naturalism
Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.
Opposition to Macroevolution
Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life descended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree that all dogs are related to an original canine pair—part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.
The Historicity of the Genesis Account
Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Areas of Difference Between Young-and Old-Earth Creationists
Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.
The Age of the Earth
A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Young-earthers connect their view to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11), but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.
At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences….
Conclusion
The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teaching have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:
(1) There is a theistic God.
(2) Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
(3) Every living thing was created by God.
(4) Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
(5) The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.
While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (a theistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God). The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, increasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whether theistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.1
Note:
1 Taken from Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 468-73. Used by permission.
My view is pretty fluid on some of this due to so many scholars who are much smarter than me and disagree on these issues. I've landed on a view, but am open to the possibility that I could be mistaken (by the way, I'm like this with my end times picture as well). I think the following article from the brilliant theologian, Norm Geisler, may prove helpful to you as you weigh the arguments.
The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution
by Dr. Norman Geisler
Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianity on whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical and theological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolution and creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two major groups: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. (The former are often called progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationism is championed by Hugh Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania.
Young-Earth Creationism
The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours–six successive 24-hour days–while old-earth (progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:
(1) placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and local Creation);
(2) placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called "gap" views);
(3) making the "days" of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
(4) allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1(called "alternate day-age views); or
(5) making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called "revelatory day" views).
There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.
Old-Earth Creationism
Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old-earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the originally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, prominent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.
Theistic Evolution
Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life. All theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act—the act of creating the physical universe from nothing. However, this may more properly be called deistic evolution, since there are no miracles involved after the first act of Creation.
Most theistic evolutionists hold to at least two acts of Creation: (1) the creation of matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that, allegedly, every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Some theistic evolutionists do insist that God directly created the first soul in the long-evolved primate to make it truly human and in His image….
Areas of Agreement Between Young- and Old-Earth Creationists
Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things.
Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life
Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).
Opposition to Naturalism
Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.
Opposition to Macroevolution
Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life descended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree that all dogs are related to an original canine pair—part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.
The Historicity of the Genesis Account
Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Areas of Difference Between Young-and Old-Earth Creationists
Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.
The Age of the Earth
A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Young-earthers connect their view to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11), but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.
At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences….
Conclusion
The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teaching have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:
(1) There is a theistic God.
(2) Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
(3) Every living thing was created by God.
(4) Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
(5) The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.
While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (a theistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God). The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, increasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whether theistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.1
Note:
1 Taken from Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 468-73. Used by permission.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Voter Guidance
The following entry was written some time ago, during the primaries. I think, however, it should be helpful for Tuesday. --Rusty
How are Christians supposed to determine who to vote for in crucial elections? Hopefully, the following ten guidelines will help. They are influenced by Stoyan Zaimov’s article published in the Christian Post Reporter on 12/26/11 (Iowa Pastors' Advice for Christian Voters as Caucuses Approach).
1. Pray. As Christians, we are commanded in 1 Tim. 2:1 to pray for our governmental authorities. Certainly this would apply to praying over the placement of people into these positions of authority. Before you vote, ask God to give you clarity and wisdom. Politicians are notorious for saying what we want to hear, not necessarily what they believe. Not all politicians are like this, but certainly many are. We need discernment to know who the real deal is and who is a fake.
2. Faith. I believe the most important freedom our country has is the freedom to practice our faith without government intrusion. If a candidate does not respect the Bible and the rights of our citizens to worship the God of the Bible, it would be unwise to vote for him or her. Pay attention to how the candidate talks about people of faith.
3. Life. If a candidate has little regard for the life of an infant or of the elderly, I will not vote for him or her. Admittedly, some candidates make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. That is to say, they want to eliminate abortion somehow and in some way, but prefer to look to medical science and/or social reform rather than a repeal of Roe vs. Wade as the means of ending abortion. Nevertheless, if a candidate does not see a fetus as a life or supports unfettered euthanasia, I have a hard time voting for that individual. Pro-life is a big one for me.
4. Poverty. If a candidate is overly focused on capitalism or wealth to the neglect of the poor, I am less inclined to vote for him or her. Our leaders should show concern for the poor. However, by poor, I don’t mean irresponsible. The Bible is clear that we are to expect our citizens to be productive contributors to society (2 Thes. 3:10). The government should provide help to those who have been hit by difficulties and are infirmed. But for able-bodied citizens, we should more frequently offer a hand up than a hand out.
5. Character. It stands to reason that a leader, if he or she is to lead well, must have a strong, moral character. The best indicator of future character is past behavior. If elected, this person is given a public trust. If that leader is not trustworthy, there will be problems keeping the trust! So, it’s fair game to look at a track record when it comes to marriage, family, fiscal responsibility, job performance, etc. Is this person a man or woman of integrity? What does the past tell us?
6. Family. The biblical standard of marriage as between a man and a woman is an important issue for me. This is not simply ideological, but practical as well. Society simply functions better when the family unit consists of one father and one mother in a faithful, healthy, sacred, and monogamous relationship. Redefining marriage in homosexual or polygamous terms (FYI, there is also currently a movement to recognize polygamous marriage) logically leads to redefining the ideals we pass on to future generations. Where a candidate stands on this issue will have an impact on my vote.
7. Economy. It is a biblical principle to pay back debt and to reward those who work hard. It is important to me, therefore, for a candidate to be fiscally responsible with state or national debt and to encourage economic development. If our government penalizes financial success with over-taxation and hikes up debt to pay for too many entitlements, our nation will not be prosperous enough to provide for the poor. The greatest institutions for helping the poor, our churches and other non-profits, will not have the income to provide maximum care because donations will be too low in a struggling economy. We do need governmental oversight to protect the public from corporate corruption (such as predatory lending), but we must be careful to allow a healthy free market to thrive. I want to know that my leaders possess fiscal understanding and have the leadership skills necessary to provide strong economic direction.
8. Military/Law Enforcement. Throughout biblical history, the government had the noble responsibility of protecting its citizens from attack. Strong, moral, and disciplined military and law enforcement agencies are necessary for the sake of freedom. Yet, these forces should be used only for just causes. In candidates, I look for men and women who respect the military and law enforcement and expect these agencies to abide by the highest standards of human decency.
9. Education. When it comes to educating our kids, the most important question is “What’s best for the children?” If a candidate begins the discussion with teachers’ rights or a strict separation of secular and private education, I’m less inclined to vote for him or her. However, I applaud those who want to encourage educational systems that reward educators who truly love kids and are gifted in training them.
10. Global. We are to be good neighbors to other countries in the world. I expect my governmental leaders to be ambassadors of good will, champions of freedom, well-informed, diplomatically savvy, and tangibly formidable when it comes to other nations. Israel, in particular, is an ally that must be given special attention due to biblical wisdom (Gen. 12:1-2) and strategic objectives (its alliance is crucial in the struggle against militant Islamic terrorism). If a candidate seems shallow, ignorant, naive, or feeble with regard to foreign policy, I’m less likely to vote for him or her.
These are some of the guidelines that help me filter candidates in an election. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. It also requires us to research where each of the candidates stand. But, perhaps, it will aid you as you ask for the Spirit’s discernment in the ballot box.
How are Christians supposed to determine who to vote for in crucial elections? Hopefully, the following ten guidelines will help. They are influenced by Stoyan Zaimov’s article published in the Christian Post Reporter on 12/26/11 (Iowa Pastors' Advice for Christian Voters as Caucuses Approach).
1. Pray. As Christians, we are commanded in 1 Tim. 2:1 to pray for our governmental authorities. Certainly this would apply to praying over the placement of people into these positions of authority. Before you vote, ask God to give you clarity and wisdom. Politicians are notorious for saying what we want to hear, not necessarily what they believe. Not all politicians are like this, but certainly many are. We need discernment to know who the real deal is and who is a fake.
2. Faith. I believe the most important freedom our country has is the freedom to practice our faith without government intrusion. If a candidate does not respect the Bible and the rights of our citizens to worship the God of the Bible, it would be unwise to vote for him or her. Pay attention to how the candidate talks about people of faith.
3. Life. If a candidate has little regard for the life of an infant or of the elderly, I will not vote for him or her. Admittedly, some candidates make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. That is to say, they want to eliminate abortion somehow and in some way, but prefer to look to medical science and/or social reform rather than a repeal of Roe vs. Wade as the means of ending abortion. Nevertheless, if a candidate does not see a fetus as a life or supports unfettered euthanasia, I have a hard time voting for that individual. Pro-life is a big one for me.
4. Poverty. If a candidate is overly focused on capitalism or wealth to the neglect of the poor, I am less inclined to vote for him or her. Our leaders should show concern for the poor. However, by poor, I don’t mean irresponsible. The Bible is clear that we are to expect our citizens to be productive contributors to society (2 Thes. 3:10). The government should provide help to those who have been hit by difficulties and are infirmed. But for able-bodied citizens, we should more frequently offer a hand up than a hand out.
5. Character. It stands to reason that a leader, if he or she is to lead well, must have a strong, moral character. The best indicator of future character is past behavior. If elected, this person is given a public trust. If that leader is not trustworthy, there will be problems keeping the trust! So, it’s fair game to look at a track record when it comes to marriage, family, fiscal responsibility, job performance, etc. Is this person a man or woman of integrity? What does the past tell us?
6. Family. The biblical standard of marriage as between a man and a woman is an important issue for me. This is not simply ideological, but practical as well. Society simply functions better when the family unit consists of one father and one mother in a faithful, healthy, sacred, and monogamous relationship. Redefining marriage in homosexual or polygamous terms (FYI, there is also currently a movement to recognize polygamous marriage) logically leads to redefining the ideals we pass on to future generations. Where a candidate stands on this issue will have an impact on my vote.
7. Economy. It is a biblical principle to pay back debt and to reward those who work hard. It is important to me, therefore, for a candidate to be fiscally responsible with state or national debt and to encourage economic development. If our government penalizes financial success with over-taxation and hikes up debt to pay for too many entitlements, our nation will not be prosperous enough to provide for the poor. The greatest institutions for helping the poor, our churches and other non-profits, will not have the income to provide maximum care because donations will be too low in a struggling economy. We do need governmental oversight to protect the public from corporate corruption (such as predatory lending), but we must be careful to allow a healthy free market to thrive. I want to know that my leaders possess fiscal understanding and have the leadership skills necessary to provide strong economic direction.
8. Military/Law Enforcement. Throughout biblical history, the government had the noble responsibility of protecting its citizens from attack. Strong, moral, and disciplined military and law enforcement agencies are necessary for the sake of freedom. Yet, these forces should be used only for just causes. In candidates, I look for men and women who respect the military and law enforcement and expect these agencies to abide by the highest standards of human decency.
9. Education. When it comes to educating our kids, the most important question is “What’s best for the children?” If a candidate begins the discussion with teachers’ rights or a strict separation of secular and private education, I’m less inclined to vote for him or her. However, I applaud those who want to encourage educational systems that reward educators who truly love kids and are gifted in training them.
10. Global. We are to be good neighbors to other countries in the world. I expect my governmental leaders to be ambassadors of good will, champions of freedom, well-informed, diplomatically savvy, and tangibly formidable when it comes to other nations. Israel, in particular, is an ally that must be given special attention due to biblical wisdom (Gen. 12:1-2) and strategic objectives (its alliance is crucial in the struggle against militant Islamic terrorism). If a candidate seems shallow, ignorant, naive, or feeble with regard to foreign policy, I’m less likely to vote for him or her.
These are some of the guidelines that help me filter candidates in an election. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. It also requires us to research where each of the candidates stand. But, perhaps, it will aid you as you ask for the Spirit’s discernment in the ballot box.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Which Candidate: A Mormon or A Liberal?
The following is an excellent blog entry written by Dr. Randy Alcorn, an outstanding theological thinker. I completely concur with his evaluation of the candidates and the subsequent difficulties of this election. Sorry about the format (no paragraph sections), but I had a hard time importing the text to my blog.
Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?) By Randy Alcorn My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients). I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties. Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.) Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16). I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes. Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :). Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.” On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others. I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.) Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading: Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829. There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: •God was once a man like us. •God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. •God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob. •God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her. •Jesus was married. •There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds. •We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes. •Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father •Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife. •Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life. •The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere. •If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood. •A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple. I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus. Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God: “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself. Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers. Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines. Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace. But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity. In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family. I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible. (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.) So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office. Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says, Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible…. …Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful. Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting. I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too. All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.” I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense. Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :) To see this blog entry, along with the links Dr. Alcorn mentions, visit: http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/18/election-2012-part-3
Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?) By Randy Alcorn My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients). I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties. Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.) Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16). I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes. Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :). Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.” On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others. I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.) Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading: Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829. There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: •God was once a man like us. •God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. •God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob. •God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her. •Jesus was married. •There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds. •We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes. •Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father •Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife. •Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life. •The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere. •If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood. •A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple. I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus. Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God: “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself. Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers. Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines. Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace. But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity. In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family. I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible. (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.) So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office. Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says, Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible…. …Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful. Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting. I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too. All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.” I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense. Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :) To see this blog entry, along with the links Dr. Alcorn mentions, visit: http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/18/election-2012-part-3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)