This is the Third of Five Posts on the Topic of Salvation. This post examines the magnificent Epistle to the Romans:
One of the clearest Epistles, and probably the most theologically rich, is the Epistle of Romans. It spends a lot of time on salvation. St. Paul wants us to understand salvation.
So, let’s dive into it a little. Let’s begin with Romans 3:23. St. Paul says,
. . . all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 (NAB)
Here, Paul states the obvious. None of us are perfect and we don’t deserve God, ever. We have “all sinned” and have not, and cannot, earn “the glory of God.” We don’t deserve to be in God’s house. But check this out:
They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24 (NAB)
Justification here is offered “freely by his grace.” Works are not added. Salvation is an act of grace (“unmerited favor,” or “favor without works”). And, just to be clear, Paul specifically says good works are not part of the salvation equation (although they are very important):
A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. 5But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven
and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record." Romans 4:4-8 (NAB)
What’s the natural reading of this text? Paul is comparing the idea of earning salvation through good works with the idea of receiving salvation solely as a gift. If you work for something, it’s not a gift. But something received through trust or faith is a gift: “his faith is credited as righteousness apart from works.” This isn’t vague language. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.
Other passages that teach, very clearly, this principle are the following:
But what does it say?
"The word is near you,
in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
9for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:8-9 (NAB)
Notice, there’s a promise, a done deal sealed in the heavens, “you will be saved.” Also, the faith is more than mere profession, it’s real faith, from the heart.
But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:6 (NAB)
Here, St. Paul is emphatic. Grace cannot be confused with works. If works have anything to do with grace, grace is no longer grace. This is very clear.
What then can we say that Abraham found, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. 3For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. 5But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:1-5 (NAB)
Again, Paul makes it clear that the “credit” we receive is not our own, but Christ’s and is given as a remarkable “gift” and not earned.
Soulman: Provider of Soul Food.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Can I Lose Salvation: 2
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.”
"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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)