Showing posts with label God So Loved the World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God So Loved the World. Show all posts

Thursday, April 8, 2010

God So Loved the World: Debating Baptismal Regeneration--Put On Hold

Last time I posted what seemed like the beginning of an email debate over the necessity of baptism when it comes to salvation. After the response I posted, my friend suggested we meet in person with his pastor to discuss the matter. Initially I agreed; however, after a couple of probing questions I have decided I cannot in good conscience discuss baptism or any other doctrinal matters face-to-face until we come to an agreement on what I think is a more fundamental matter. Here is how I came to that conclusion.

After a couple of emails back and forth, my friend wrote,

[Jim] I understand that what God wants for us is to be saved and join him in Heaven...How we are to get to be with God in Heaven is written down in a manner for us to understand. I seek the truth that leads to Heaven...I want to be sure that I am teaching myself and my family that they have a way to get to Heaven.

This emphasis on "heaven" at first didn't strike me as all that serious. Many Christians refer to the resurrection as "heaven," or don't readily think of the resurrection, but at least acknowledge it. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Also, I'm assuming you mean that you "want to be sure that [you are] teaching [yourself] and [your] family that they have a way to [be resurrected]." I just want to make sure that your hope is in the resurrection, ultimately, not "heaven." If not, that's another important discussion we need to have.

You see, at this point I just figured "going to heaven" was a euphamism for the resurrection. My friend responded,

[Jim] You use the word resurrection, which I understand to mean return to physical life from physical death. I don't use this term in talking of "life in Heaven" for this would be a spiritual life and in order to get there we (people) must die physically.

Now for some reason, at this point I still didn't suspect anything. I don't know if I initially misread his words or what, but I still thought we were just disagreeing on terminology. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Scripture teaches that our hope is in the final, bodily resurrection from the dead, which for many Christians is merely an afterthought. When you said you want to teach your family what they need to "have a way to get to Heaven," I just wanted to make sure that you recognize that "heaven" is a temporary, less-than-ideal state, and that your ultimate hope is in the resurrection.

I've left some things out, as I don't want to get off topic in this mini-series. But suffice it to say that we were discussing another issue or two as well, and at this point my friend decided we should table any further discussion on those other topics until we met in person. I was fine with this, except I noticed that he didn't address what I had said about the resurrection. This is where alarm bells started to go off, and I wrote this:

[Theopologetics] I still need to know that you acknowledge that all the dead will one day in the future be bodily resurrected from the dead--after our time in heaven. If you do, great, we can meet and discuss baptism. If you do not, I'm not comfortable meeting to discuss baptism until we discuss the resurrection, and I'll explain why if you'd like.

I honestly wrote this with nearly 100% certainty that he would respond in agreement. To my surprise, this is how he responded:

[Jim] I don't agree with that, but that can be added to the list of things to study the scriptures to understand.

To anybody familiar with the debate between preterists and hyperpreterists, you'll know, now, why I am not comfortable discussing any other doctrinal matters until we can agree on the resurrection. Here is how I responded to him:

[Theopologetics] I appreciate your honesty. Honestly =). Yes, we can discuss that too, then.

However, when we get together face-to-face, I do not think I can in good conscience discuss baptism until we've discussed the resurrection. The centrality of the future, bodily resurrection is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15, particularly verses 12 to 19. And in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, the teaching of those who deny the future resurrection is likened unto gangrene, and that their heresies were destroying the faith of some. I hope you'll understand--even if you don't agree--that I cannot subject myself to the risk of having my faith destroyed by discussing baptism or any other topic with someone who denies the resurrection. Not until we agree on the future bodily resurrection can I in good faith discuss any other doctrine with you and your pastor in person.

So yes, we can plan on meeting with the plan to discuss a) the resurrection, and b) baptism, among anything else you would like. But I'm sorry that I will not be comfortable moving onto baptism, etc., until we've agreed on the resurrection. Are you comfortable, then, with the possibility that we might not ever get to the topic you primarily desire to discuss?

It wasn't until after I sent this a couple of hours ago that it dawned on me that my friend might be a hyperpreterist. I assumed that he just didn't believe in the resurrection, which of course is serious enough. However, I got to wondering, are there professing Christians who deny the resurrection but who aren't hyperpreterists?

Please keep my friend and me in your prayers. I'm not sure if he will be willing to meet to discuss the resurrection if there's the possibility we may not get to baptism. I hope he understands--and indeed I hope you, my readers, understand--why I cannot comfortably discuss other doctrinal matters in person with him until we agree on this essential of the historic Christian faith. Stay tuned for updates.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

God So Loved the World: Debating Baptismal Regeneration--Day One

Sorry I haven't been posting much lately. I've got so many things I want to continue posting about: the bibliology series I promised my old friend I would continue; my evolution debate (which hasn't continued in earnest since I last posted); my evidence for the Trinity; and so on and so forth. But all in its due time. Those of you who enjoy my blog--as few of you as there might be--please don't give up on me.

I recently began a discussion over email with an old friend concerning the relationship between baptism and salvation. His claim is that salvation is a requirement for salvation, whereas my contention is that salvation is a free gift given by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In case any of my readers might find the discussion edifying, I figured I'd reproduce the relevant points here at my blog. For the sake of anonymity, I'll call my friend "Jim." Jim, if I misquote you or misrepresent your position, please let me know. Do continue to respond via email, however, rather than in comments in response to this post; I think the discussion will be clearer as individual blog posts rather than as a ridiculously long thread of comments with limited formatting options.

DAY ONE: BAPTISM AND THE GOSPEL

My friend saw a comment I had made in which I mentioned that "that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone." This proved to be the catalyst for the discussion which I'll be reproducing here. My friend saw this comment and contacted me via email. Here is how he began:

[Jim] The teaching of baptism must be taken from the understanding of the teaching of the gospel. This is my understanding.

Beginning in Matt 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Acts 1:3-8 "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Acts 16:10 "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

Romans 1:16-17 "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

These scriptures give weight to the understanding of the teaching from Acts 2:38 in that they explain the gospel of Christ and when looking into these scriptures the message is therefore clarified to mean that everyone who wants to be saved MUST believe AND be baptized into Christ.

Here was my response to him:

[Theopologetics] I'm going to break up my argument into discernible points:
 
1. SALVATION NOT BY WORKS

First, the Protestant Reformers recognized what the Catholic Church had largely lost, namely (and among other things) that Scripture teaches that salvation is a free gift of God through faith, not dependent upon ANY works. As Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). If salvation is in any part dependent upon any work--including baptism--then some may boast. Those who are saved can boast, saying, "I was more obedient than you, so I was baptized, so I was saved."

The jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" How did they respond? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31). He didn't tell him to be baptized, he said merely to believe.

Paul wrote to the Romans, "apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested...through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Romans 3:21-22). No mention of baptism, only belief. He also said to them, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). No mention of baptism, only faith.

Of particular importance is what Paul said to the Romans in Romans 4:1-12. There, he explains that Abraham was saved before he was circumcised, and that the faith he had before this ceremony was credited to him as righteousness. Paul goes on to say that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised. And this faith he had which was credited to him as righteousness before the sign which signified it is the same kind of faith believers in Christ have.

Paul also wrote to Titus, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Our salvation is not on the basis of any deed--including baptism. (I'll come back to this verse in a bit.)

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). No mention of baptism. And, "He who believes in Him is not judged" (verse 18). No mention of baptism. And, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life" (verse 36). No mention of baptism.

He said to Martha, "he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die" (John 11:25-25). No mention of baptism.

John wrote, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1). No mention of baptism.

The whole point of the gospel is that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. If it is given only if you perform some deed or work, then you are in some sense earning your salvation. When we look at verses that connect baptism with salvation, since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, we must interpret them in such a way as to be consistent with those verses which clearly communicate that salvation is not dependent upon any work.

2. IN THE BIBLE, SOME WERE SAVED BEFORE BAPTISM

In Acts 10:44-48, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message...Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." These Gentiles believed first, and were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and were baptized after their salvation.

3. VERSES WHICH ARE STRANGE IF BAPTISM IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1 Corinthians 1:14). Really?!?! He goes on to say, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). Really?!?! If baptism is necessary for salvation, these statements would be ludicrous. Yes, his point in this passage is that he doesn't want to encourage division (verse 15), but if baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would basically be saying, "I thank God that I helped you believe but left you unsaved until someone else baptized you." Or, "Christ sent me only to preach, but not to take new believers to the next step of baptism which is required to be saved." That'd be utterly ridiculous.

Also, you said, "the teaching of baptism must be taken from the understanding of the teaching of the gospel." Okay, but then Paul's summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is strangely devoid of this essential requirement. Not only does he leave baptism out of it altogether, but he also says that we're saved by it "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (verse 2). He doesn’t say, "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you and are baptized." If baptism is such a requirement, it is strange that Paul leaves it out of both the gospel summary and that which is required to be saved.

4. HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS WHICH ARE PROBLEMATIC IF BAPTISM IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION

An old man, an unbeliever, is at a church service to witness his granddaughter's baptism. Moved to belief, in tears he stands up and begs to be baptized. Asked if he believes he is a sinner and that Jesus died and rose again for his salvation, he says he does, and as he walks toward the stage he has a heart attack and dies.

A woman has recently become a believer and is scheduled to be baptized this afternoon. She's overflowing with newfound love for her Savior, and she's excited to be baptized. She parks across the street, and as she crosses the street to the church, she's hit by a bus and dies.

And on and on it goes. The point is, it is the height of absurdity to think that genuine believers are not saved simply because they died moments before their opportunity to be baptized. And yet that's precisely what this idea requires.

5. HOW DO WORKS RELATE TO SALVATION?

Works are an outward manifestation of inward salvation. James wrote, "I will show you my faith by my works," and "faith without works is dead." A genuine faith, he tells us, is one which produces works. Without works, a faith is an inanimate, false, dead faith. The problem, he tells us, is not with the lack of works, but with the lack of real faith.

Paul told the Galatians that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). As "fruit," works are manifestations of faith, not that upon which faith is dependent.

What Scripture tells us is the relationship between salvation and works is that one who is genuinely saved naturally produces works. They are evidence of, not requirements for, salvation. As John wrote, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

6. SOME PROOF TEXTS LEVELED AGAINST GRACE-ALONE

Remember as we look at these that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. As we've already seen, the consistent message of the gospel is that it is a free gift from God not based on works/deeds. We must keep this in mind as we look at these verses.

Titus 3:5: I mentioned earlier that I'd come back to this one. What of "the washing of regeneration" mentioned here? This cannot mean that we are saved only if we are baptized, for then Paul would be contradicting himself; remember, he just said our salvation is not on the basis of any deed. What, then, does Paul mean? One of two things. Some commentators have simply understood Paul as including the outward sign with the inward change that saves. Matthew Henry wrote, "Here is the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the washing of regeneration. The work itself is inward and spiritual; but it is outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Water is of a cleansing and purifying nature, does away the filth of the flesh, and so was apt to signify the doing away of the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ" Calvin wrote, "The apostles are wont to draw an argument from the sacraments to prove the thing therein signified, because it ought to be a recognized principle among the godly, that God does not mark us with empty signs, but by His power inwardly makes good what He demonstrates by the outward sign." Another possibility is that the "washing" here is not baptism. No Greek word for "baptism" is included here, and the "washing of regeneration" here may refer to the washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us.

Mark 16:15-16: It is likely this was not a part of the original Scriptures. The earliest manuscripts do not contain anything past verse 8, and only later manuscripts contains verses 9 through 20. For more information, see http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html. Still, let's assume for a moment that it was in the original. Then Jesus does say, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved," but look what He goes on to say: "but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." Note He doesn't say, "he who has disbelieved or has not been baptized shall be condemned." Thus, even if these verses weren't added later, as the evidence suggests, they still don't prove your point. I explained above that deeds are produced by a genuine faith, so all Jesus is saying--again, if these words even belong in Scripture--is that if one's faith is genuine and thus produces adherence to His commands, he will be saved.

Acts 2:38: You can't use this verse in support of your position without it backfiring on you. It reads, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Note what it leaves out: Belief! Faith! Trust! If this verse is a "formula" for salvation, then you must conclude that faith isn't required; any unbeliever could repent of his sins and be baptized in Christ's name without truly believing. Clearly that's not the case. No, repentance and baptism are fruits of genuine faith, and what this verse says is that if we have genuine faith--one which leads to repentance and to baptism--we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I'll address other texts as you bring them up.

SUMMARY

To summarize, the consistent message of the gospel is that salvation is a free gift given to those who did not deserve it nor earn it in any way, shape or form. It is given by God's grace alone, through faith alone, not on the basis of works or deeds. Christians are commanded to be baptized, yes, but it is merely an outward sign of a change which has taken place inwardly already. Furthermore, like any work, it is the fruit of, not the basis for, our salvation. We should not resist the command to be baptized, but neither should we resist the command to resist all sorts of temptations into which we give from time to time. Thank God that it is not our ability to perfectly obey God's command that determines whether or not we are saved! If it were, well I'm, excuse my language, frankly screwed.

That's it for now. Stay tuned, I'll post tomorrow with any responses which take place before then.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

God So Loved the World: What Condition My Condition Is In

To start this series in earnest, in an effort to develop a complete (as far as is possible and has been revealed to us) grasp of what the gospel is, let's take a cue from Kenny Rogers and drop in to see what condition our condition is in. Before we look at what it is from which we need saving, let's look at why it is that we need saving from something to begin with. In other words, let's first look at the condition man is in, and later the consequences from which we are saved.

Many today, coming from a variety of world views, seem to think humans are, by and large, basically good. We struggle to a certain extent with our savage tendencies, but we all seek primarily to do good because we are good, more so than we are otherwise. As L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, put it:

"man is basically good. This means that the basic personality and the basic intentions of the individual, toward himself and others, are good...He is basically well-intentioned. He does not want to harm himself or others." ("Ethics, Justice, and the Dynamics," 1980)

Are Hubbard and many others today correct? Are humans basically good, having a lesser evil quality to them that tugs in opposition to their primary desire to do good? What does the Bible say about the condition our condition is in?

THE FIRST MAN, ADAM

"So also it is written, 'The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

The first step in building a proper understanding of man's current condition is to recognize that all humans are the descendants of "the first man, Adam." Though it is not immediately apparent (arguably), this is fundamental and vital to the gospel itself. In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul contrasts "the first man, Adam" with Jesus Christ. Adam, it is written, "became a living soul;" in contrast, Jesus "became a life-giving spirit." Whereas Adam was formed "from the earth" (Genesis 2:7), Jesus came "from heaven." And just as by virtue of being descended from Adam we bear "the image of the earthy," as a result of faith in Christ we "bear the image of the heavenly."

Thus, failing to recognize that there was a first man formed from the earth from whom the rest of mankind descended undermines the very nature of the gospel. If there was not a first Adam, there is no last Adam. If there was no first living soul, there is no last life-giving spirit. If there was not first a man formed from the earth, there is no man from heaven. And if we do not bear the image of the earthy, we cannot expect to bear the image of the heavenly. And it was not merely Paul who recognized that Adam was the first man:

"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?' And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'" (Matthew 19:3-6)

What basis does Jesus give for limiting freedom of divorce? My preferred translation, the NASB, capitalizes quotations from the Old Testament. In answering the Pharisees, Jesus quotes the book of Genesis saying that from the beginning, "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27); and "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Like Paul, Jesus recognized that Adam was the first man.

THE IMAGE OF GOD

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)

The second step in building a proper understanding of man's current condition is to recognize the condition in which man was originally created. Man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of God. Theologians of the past sometimes distinguish between the "image" and "likeness" of God, and while I might disagree (verse 26 uses both terms but verse 27 uses only "image," and it is unlikely that God said "Let Us make man...according to Our likeness" but then didn't do so), the point is unchanged: we were created, in certain respects, like God. Theologians often like to use the Latin imagio dei, though I prefer the Hebrew צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎, the tzelem elohim.

What does it mean that man was created in the image and likeness of God? It does not mean that we were created physically similar to a physical God (I won't refute that notion here, but will do so at some point in the series, "Ministering to Mormons"). It simply means we are similar to God in certain ways. One of the ways in which we were created similar to God is in our original moral condition. Consider Paul's words in his letter to the Ephesians: "put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Ephesians 4:24).

Man was created morally perfect, "in righteousness and holiness." Adam and Eve were predisposed toward doing good, rather than toward doing evil. The world was without sin, and thus "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). They were exposed to God and unashamed: "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25). They had a close, personal relationship with God and were accustomed to Him "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Genesis 3:8).

HAS GOD SAID?

"The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.'" (Genesis 2:16-17)

In this state of moral perfection, God had given Adam and Eve one command: "from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat." But the liar was quick to tempt Eve:

"the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, has God said, "You shall not eat from any tree of the garden"?'...The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" (Genesis 3:1,4-5)

This serpent was Satan, the devil (Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2). God had said Adam and Eve were not to eat of the fruit, for they would die. Satan lied to Eve, saying that what God had said was not true. In fact, he told her, not only would she not die, but she would "be like God!" What was her response, and that of Adam?

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6)

Thus, Adam and Eve, despite having no predisposition toward doing evil, nevertheless broke the one commandment God had given them. Satan "deceived Eve by his craftiness" and their "minds [were] led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to [God]" (2 Corinthians 11:3).

The third step in building a proper understanding of man's current condition is to recognize the consequences Adam and Eve faced as a result of their having given into temptation. The Bible describes a variety of such consequences, but as pertain to the question of man's current condition, there are two.

THE MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US

First, "the eyes of both of them were opened" (Genesis 3:7). "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22). Does this mean Satan had told the truth to Eve? An entire sermon could be preached on just what this means, but there seem to be two major possibilities. One traditional interpretation is that God is shaming them through irony or sarcasm. As Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary,

"How they were justly disgraced and shamed before God and the holy angels, by the ironical upbraiding of them with the issue of their enterprise: 'Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil! A goodly god he makes! Does he not? See what he has got, what preferments, what advantages, by eating forbidden fruit!' This was said to awaken and humble them, and to bring them to a sense of their sin and folly, and to repentance for it, that, seeing themselves thus wretchedly deceived by following the devil’s counsel, they might henceforth pursue the happiness God should offer in the way he should prescribe. God thus fills their faces with shame, that they may seek his name, Ps. 83:16. He puts them to this confusion, in order to their conversion. True penitents will thus upbraid themselves: 'What fruit have I now by sin? Rom. 6:21. Have I gained what I foolishly promised myself in a sinful way? No, no, it never proved what it pretended to, but the contrary.'"

In other words, yes "the eyes of both them were opened," but they were opened to their own shame: "they knew that they were naked" (Genesis 3:7). And God mocks them, pointing out the absurdity of Satan's words, and the temptation into which they gave. Though we do not typically think of God as using sarcasm or mockery, it nevertheless is a possibility. Elijah appears to have used it in a righteous way in 1 Kings 18:25-27:

"So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, 'Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it.' Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, 'O Baal, answer us.' But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made. It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, 'Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.'"

Just as Elijah used mockery to illustrate the foolishness of Baal's prophets, so too might God have been using mockery to illustrate the foolishness of falling for Satan's deception. And their foolish sin has become their shame, to cover which God clothes them with garments made of animal skins (Genesis 3:21).

A second, arguably minority position is that most translations of verse 22 have rendered it incorrectly. According to this view, a more accurate translation might render the verse thusly: "And Jehovah God saith, 'Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil" (Young's Literal). Robert Jamieson wrote in his commentary on this passage,

"And God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us--not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, 'Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one of us'! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now."

In this view, God said man was already like God, knowing good and evil. Either way, what is clear is that whereas Adam and Eve had originally been created in the image and likeness of God, reflecting God's holiness perfectly, they were now scuffed and warped mirrors reflecting God's righteousness poorly. Satan had deceived Eve into thinking that she would become more like God as a result of disobeying Him. In reality she, and later Adam, became less like God, and they were ashamed for being so foolish.

YOU WILL SURELY DIE

The second consequence relevant to this discussion was that Adam and Eve lost access to everlasting life. They began to die. God had said that "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17). There is no indication that this was a mere description of the natural consequence of eating the fruit. Instead, it was the penalty God had prescribed for the breaking of His command. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).

Following their sin, God sentences them to the prescribed penalty: "By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19). The Judge, having sentenced Adam and Eve to death, ensures that the penalty is carried out: "'and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'--therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden..." (Genesis 3:22-23)

However, the death Adam and Eve experienced was not merely physical in nature. As we saw previously, they had originally been created morally perfect, gloriously reflecting the image and likeness of God. In sinning, they not only began to die physically, they immediately died spiritually. They had been spiritually alive and vibrant, so much so that they were naked and unashamed and accustomed to God "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Genesis 3:8). Now they were ashamed, requiring a covering for their sinful flesh, exiled from the garden, no longer having the close, intimate relationship with God they once had: "Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You can not look on wickedness with favor" (Habakkuk 1:13). They were not merely dying physically, but they were "dead in [their] transgressions" (Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13).

At this point one might ask, "What does this have to do with the rest of us?" We've seen that the first man, Adam, was created morally perfect, in the image and likeness of God. We've seen that he and his wife were deceived into breaking God's command and, as a result, no longer bore God's image to the extent they had before, and became spiritually dead in their transgressions. How does this translate to mankind's condition today?

BY THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE ONE THE MANY DIED

The fourth step in building a proper understanding of man's current condition is to recognize that we, having all descended from the one man, Adam, have inherited his nature. When we look at the birth of Adam's first recorded son, we see something striking: "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth" (Genesis 5:3). Whereas Adam originally bore God's image, Adam's descendants bear his image, which is a flawed and fallen reflection of God's. For this reason there is a need to "put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Ephesians 4:24).

But it is not merely Adam's likeness we inherit, but also his spiritual lifelessness. Paul wrote, "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12), that "by the transgression of the one the many died" (Romans 5:15). Elsewhere he wrote, "by a man came death" (1 Corinthians 15:21) and "in Adam all die" (1 Corinthians 15:22). But it is evident that it is not merely physical death which we've inherited:

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins...But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him." (Ephesians 2:1-6)

"When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions." (Colossians 2:13)

In these passages believers are told they were dead, but of course they weren't physically dead. Nor were they physically raised up with Christ at that time. Rather, they had been spiritually dead, and were raised up unto newness of spiritual life. Therefore, man has inherited from Adam not merely physical mortality, but spiritual death.

YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL

Our last step in building a proper understanding of man's current condition is to recognize what is meant when we are said to be spiritually dead from birth. We know now that we are all descended from the one man, Adam. We know now that Adam was created morally perfect, perfectly reflecting the image and likeness of God, inclined to do good. We know now that in disobeying God he became a marred reflection of God's image and died spiritually. And we know now that we have inherited Adam's image and spiritual deadness. What does that mean?

"Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.'" (John 8:42-44)

Being spiritually dead from birth is no light matter. It means that our father is Satan, and it is our nature to want to do that which our father, the devil, desires. It means we are unable, if left to our own devices, to understand what Jesus says, to hear His word. And it's not as though some have the devil as their father and others have God as their father:

"He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become chlidren of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:11-12)

Believers are not born children of God, they are made children of God through adoption: "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Galatians 4:4-5). We "have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'" (Romans 8:15.) But before we believed, when we were born we "were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Ephesians 2:3).

So humans are, by nature, of the devil. And like our father, our inclination is to do the will of our father, Satan. Being "by nature children of wrath" we live "in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Ephesians 2:3). "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). "Through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Therefore, we all sin. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). "God has shut up all in disobedience" (Romans 11:32). "The Scripture has shut up everyone under sin" (Galatians 3:22).

SEE WHAT CONDITION OUR CONDITION IS IN

This condition of man has been called "Original Sin" by theologians. As the Catholic Encyclopedia online defines it, it is "the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam." But as we've seen, this "stain" which we inherit is not merely a slight blemish on an otherwise very good record. Man is not, as many today believe, basically good, struggling against a mild temptation to do evil. Quite the opposite; men are by nature children of the devil, predisposed toward doing their father's will, inclined toward evil continually.

Some theologians have thus called this condition "Total Depravity." It is not to suggest that there is no good in man. We do good because we do still bear, albeit poorly, the image of God. A man "is the image and glory of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7), and with our mouth "we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God" (James 3:9). Furthermore, God's Law is written on the tablet of our hearts. "Gentiles...show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

But even those good things we do are stained by "Original Sin." How often do we donate to worthy causes because we know we can deduct them from our earnings when it is time to file taxes? How often do we massage our spouses' feet in the hopes of getting something in return? (Yes, honey, that's me.) How often do we give our employer our best only because we want a raise or avoid termination? How often do we congratulate our friends' successes while hiding our jealousy? And on and on the list could go.

I've heard many say that children have to be taught how to be evil. I suspect that most of them do not have children. I have three boys, two of whom are four or older, and speaking from experience, they have to be taught how to be good. Like me, their nature is to do evil. Their nature is to disobey their parents, to deceive them, to misbehave at school, to pick at each other, to horde toys, and so on and so forth. And like me, as adults they will likewise be predisposed to lust after women to whom they are not married, to envy the wealth of others, to lie in an attempt to avoid consequences, to pridefully consider themselves superior to others, to waste their money on stuff with little value, and so on and so forth.

So, why is it we need saving from something? Is it because we sin? No. We need saving because we are sinners; it is our nature to sin. Our condition is that of depravity, and every good we do is tainted by the stink of sin. Men are not basically good with a slight tendency toward evil. Men are basically evil with a slight tendency toward good. Do you see, Kenny, what condition your condition is in?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

God So Loved the World: Introducing the Gospel

Nicodemus, one of the Pharisees, secretly met with Jesus one night to ask Him some questions. Toward the end of the conversation, Jesus spoke what are perhaps some of the most well-known words among Christians:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

For many, Jesus' words are an excellent summary of the gospel. Yet, if you ask 10 different professing Christians what the gospel is, you may very likely get 10 different answers. Many Christians are capable of reciting this and many other verses pertaining to the gospel, but don't have a fully developed understanding of what they mean.

ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS THREEMANY

Jesus said He was sent so that the world "might be saved," but just what is it the world needs saving from?Why is it that the world needs saving in the first place? Why does one "perish" if one does not believe? What does it mean to "perish?" What is the world saved unto? What is "eternal life?" Why did Jesus need to die for the world to be saved?

The question, "What is the gospel?" seems very simple, and in certain ways it is. But as we can see, there is much more to it than, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." As Christians, we ought to be able to answer these questions. If we cannot, can we really be certain we have eternal life at all? When we in prayer express our thanks to God, just how meaningful are those prayers if we don't really know what it is we're thanking Him for?

WHAT WOULD THIS IDLE BABBLER WISH TO SAY?

And if we don't know how to answer these questions, how can we hope to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)? Jesus' words to Nicodemus might hold some meaning to those familiar with the tenets of the faith. But the West has become decreasingly Christian, increasingly secular. A growing number of people aren't familiar with the tenets of biblical Christianity. If a Christian simply parrots Jesus' words to Nicodemus to them, they're likely to respond like they did to Paul at Mars Hill: "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" (Acts 17:18)

In this series, we'll try and develop a full, biblical understanding of the gospel. We'll look at what the Bible has to say in answering the questions above, as well as what it doesn't say, refuting common, incorrect interpretations thereof. As a result, our love for God will be richer, our prayer life more powerful, our thankfulness more meaningful. And when we witness to unbelievers in an attempt to "make disciples of all nations," we can do so with confidence, capable of answering their questions coherently.