Happy or Blessed? - James 1:12

I am preparing to preach this coming Sunday from James 1:12, which says,

"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."

Some years ago a number of Bible versions started using the word "happy" to translate the term "blessed". On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal, and it may even appear to be a good move because the words "happy" and "happiness" are so much a part of our contemporary culture. But over the years I have become more and more convinced that it is seriously wrong to translate the word "blessed" as "happy".

First of all, the word "happy" has to do with chance or something that just "happens". Happiness cannot often be planned for, it just happens. Usually when we least expect it and when we are not too focused on ourselves (hint, hint). I know that we Americans have the right to the "pursuit of happiness". But the truth is that while happiness can be pursued, it is rarely caught. On the other hand, blessedness is something that can and should be pursued and it can be had by godly discipline, obedience and determination.

Happiness is hard to come by, but being blessed is something within the reach of everyone everyday who knows the Lord. This is because happiness is pretty much a humanistic, secular concept, while being blessed refers to divine favor. Happiness does not have to involve God, while blessedness always does. But if all this does not convince you, look at Matthew 5:1-11.

As I said, a number of versions insert the word "happy" in this passage, but it just doesn't work under close examination. For instance, verse four says "happy are those who mourn". You cannot be happy and sad at the same time. But you can be blessed and sad at the same time. One can still sense and appreciate God's divine favor even through tears. But to say that one is happy and also sad is something even a child knows doesn't fit together.

The truth is, being blessed is much more closely connected with joy (see Matthew 5:11-12). Joy is a deep conviction that even though everything may be wrong or bad at the moment, ultimately all is well. Only a Christian can truly experience this because it requires belief in a sovereign and loving God to have this conviction. Blessedness comes from doing what is right (see Psalm 1:1-3) and knowing that God's favor rests on us regardless of what is happening at a particular point in time.

The person who perseveres in a trial and continues to trust in God is blessed by God's approval in that moment, and can look forward to the blessing of the "crown of life" in the future (see James 1:12). Happiness is fleeting and often lasts just a few moments. Being blessed is a feeling that can last for an eternity.

Mark Twain used to say that the difference between the right word and one that is close but not quite right is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. Quite a word picture! That is the difference between being happy and being blessed. Which would you prefer? Me too!

The Problem with Presumption - Proverbs 13:10

"Through presumption comes nothing but strife, but with those who receive counsel is wisdom."

I recently saw part of an interview by John Piper, the well-known pastor and writer. He interviewed another well-known pastor and writer, Rick Warren. These two men have become friends and I believe have taken some hits from friends and foes alike as a result. John Piper apparently wanted to demonstrate the areas of agreement between them, and clarify the issues of disagreement. By his own admission, Rick Warren thought he and John Piper were far apart on the issue of whether Christ's atonement was limited or unlimited. Shockingly, John Piper laid out his view of the atonement and Rick Warren said, "we are closer than I thought." I was amazed as well, because as John Piper described his view of the atonement there was very little that I would disagree with. He beautifully explained that although Christ's death was for the purpose of saving the elect and that purpose would definitely be fulfilled, he also said that God is reaching out with a "bona fide offer" to the rest of humanity to come to Him through His Son, and that we should not be reticent to share the gospel freely with everyone. That is the Calvinist Unlimited position and that is exactly what I also believe the Bible teaches.

I would never have thought in a million years that John Piper and I would be in agreement about the extent of the atonement, but apparently we are, because God cannot make a "bona fide offer" to the non-elect unless Christ died for them as well. Unless he misspoke or I completely missed something, we are in complete agreement.

This reminded me of a discussion I had not long ago with a young man in my church. He was convinced that he and I also disagreed about Christ's atonement. But when he sat down with me and talked about his conviction...it was the same as mine! A lot of people presume to know what I believe because I am a dispensationalist, but I surprise most of them when they actually dialogue with me. The truth is that there are a number of significant differences among dispensationalists, just as there can be among people who consider themselves Reformed or Arminian.

Now I am not saying that most everyone is really in agreement, and we just have to talk in order to realize it. There are still lots of biblical, practical and theological disputes among God's people that discussion is never going to change. But the truth is that we (including me) don't always verify what others believe, we just presume on certain issues that we are not in agreement. We look at where people went to school or what denomination they belong to, or who they hang and with, and just presume what a particular person believes without actually consulting the individual. I know this won't solve all of our problems with fellow believers, but it would really help if we stop presuming, and just allow people to tell us what they believe and why.

Sometimes we perpetuate disputes because we want to have a problem with fellow believers. But that's not right (see Philippians 2:1-4)! That is a pride issue. Sometimes we hear someone say something or read something he or she wrote, and we just presume from that what that person believes about other matters. This may be because it makes us feel important to be in disagreement with others, especially when the individual is well-known or popular. But when we just presume that we have a difference with others without asking or checking, that is presumption and that will lead to nothing but strife. May God help me, and all of us as believers to do better in this area!

Is Heaven For Real? - John 14:2

"In my Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you..."

It has been a long time, about a month, since I wrote a new post. In one sense, I apologize to those of you who have faithfully come here looking for a fresh commentary from God's Word only to be disappointed. I truly regret that. But in another sense, I am not sorry because the last month has been incredibly busy and difficult. Besides all that, I just simply have not been moved to write about anything. However, this morning I just finished a book I have been trying to read for a couple of months.

It is a book that has been on the New York Times Best-Seller list for some time, but much more important, it is a book about heaven. I love books about heaven, though a good one is rare, and this is a good one in my opinion. Randy Alcorn's book on heaven is still my all-time favorite, but this may be second. Why? Because it is written by a pastor in Nebraska named Todd Burpo (no belching jokes, please) about his son, Colton, who had a near death experience (NDE), and supposedly was transported to heaven during an emergency operation to save his life. I say "supposedly" because not everyone believes that NDEs are real, including a lot of evangelicals, not just pagan skeptics. But having talked with down-to-earth, sensible, normal people who have had them, I do believe in NDEs, as long as what the person experiences is not contrary to Scripture. If it is, then I have to conclude that they were either deceived by Satan or that they failed to remember things accurately.

Having qualified my belief in NDEs, Colton, who was about four at the time of his operation and NDE, tells his father in the first year or so afterward many wonderful and scripturally verifiable things about heaven. A few of them are difficult for me to accept, i.e., that people have wings to fly. But there is little or nothing that I can say for sure is bibically wrong, and there are some things that are absolutely extraordinary. Colton says that he saw Jesus and that He has red "markers" on His hands and feet. Could he be referring to the marks of our Lord's crucifixion, which He still bears (see Revelation 5:6)? Colton also says he met a girl in heaven who claims to be his other sister. It turns out that his mother, Sonja, had a miscarriage. He believes that he met his sister in heaven, but he never knew about his mother's miscarriage. He also met his grandfather, "Pop", who died many years before he was born. Colton identified him not by a picture of him in old age, but in his grandfather's youth. But I'm not doing justice to the book. I recommend that you read it. Even if you don't believe in NDEs, or think that the kid was lying, or assume that the father made all this up to sell a book, you need to read it. It is at the least, very thought-provoking. At the most, it could convince you that, as Colton says, "Heaven is for real."

 But the truth is that Jesus already told us that heaven is for real (John 14:2) and He even went so far to tell us that if heaven did not exist, and did not have a "dwelling place" for us, He would have told us and set the record straight. So even if you don't believe Colton Burpo, we really should trust Jesus on the subject of heaven. Who would know better than the Son of God !? But I still recommend that you read, Heaven Is For Real. This little boy's perspective on heaven is priceless!

Worship in the Church - I Corinthians 11-14

Not long ago a friend asked me if I thought that I Corinthians chapters 11-14 was the primary passage in the New Testament when it comes to understanding how the church should worship. I said yes. But I didn't have a good chance to explain what I meant by that. I believe that Corinthians 11-14 tells us more than probably any other single passage, but it still is not very much in terms of details and exact directions. The primary purpose for these chapters was to tell the Corinthians the correct way to use spiritual gifts in worship.

True, Paul begins with addressing the issue of head coverings in worship (11:2-16). Paul also confronts the Corinthians about their sinful behavior in regard to the Lord's Supper and the fellowship meal that preceded it (11:17-34). But beginning in chapter twelve, Paul addresses head on the use of spiritual gifts when the church is gathered for worship.

Paul starts in chapter twelve by explaining what some of the gifts are that given by the Holy Spirit (12:1-11), and then he moves to the issue of how the body of Christ is both diversified and unified in regard to spiritual gifts (12:12-31). Paul takes the time in chapter thirteen to explain the supremacy of love in regard to spiritual gifts and their use. Then in chapter fourteen he contrasts prophesy and tongues, and promotes prophesy as much more important and vital to the body of Christ than tongues (14:1-25). In verse twenty-six, Paul goes on to say,

"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification."

At first glance, it seems as if Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to freely participate in the worship service and use their gifts in whatever manner they desire as long as the goal is edification of the body, not themselves. Some Christian leaders today have built a whole worship methodology out of this verse. They teach that the worship service should not have an order or even any leadership except the moving of the Spirit. But as the following verses indicate, that is not the case. From verse twenty-seven to the end of the chapter, Paul lays out very clear guidelines for how people could participate in the worship of the church. Far from people participating freely or at their own inner direction, Paul limits the number who can speak in tongues (14:27-28). He limits the number that can prophesy (14:29-33). He clearly indicates that some are to "pass judgment" on what has been spoken (v.29)  He appears to even exclude women from speaking or using the speaking gifts completely (vs. 34-38). But I believe he is only excluding them from participating in or leading the primary teaching time in the worship service (see this post), as he has already implicitly granted that they can prophesy if properly covered (11:5).

The bottom line is that these chapters tell us very, very little about what exactly worship in the church should look like. They tell us much more about what it should not look like. I don't know why God didn't give us a clear example or complete and detailed instructions about New Testament worship. Perhaps it is not all that different from Old Testament worship, without animal sacrifices, of course. More likely, God is giving individual churches the freedom to worship within the biblical principles and guidelines we do have in a number of Scriptures. If He gave us a detailed example of how a particular local church worshipped in the first century, we might follow it too slavishly. I believe that God has not been too specific with worship because He wants us to seek Him, not fall into a single, inflexible worship plan. Whatever the reason, I Corinthians chapters 11-14 don't give us sufficient information to understand and put together a complete biblical plan for worship. For that, we have to look at the whole counsel of God, and that will be another post.

Neither Male or Female in Christ - Galatians 3:28

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

Galatians 3:28 has been called the "Magna Carta" of Christianity. It supposedly sets everyone free to be whatever they believe the Lord wants them to be, and eliminates all gender-based distinctions and roles in the body of Christ. But as incredibly empowering and liberating as this verse is, the context indicates something different from what a lot of Christian pastors, authors and theologians are saying about it these days.

In the verses that immediately precede it, Paul says that we are "...all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (v. 26). Now as politically incorrect as it is today, Paul is saying that all of us who are trusting in Christ as the One who died in our place are "sons of God". The point is that all of us, men and women alike, have a high and privileged position in Christ, and in fact, God sees us not as sinners anymore, but as those who are "clothed...with Christ" (v. 27). He now sees Christ when He looks at us. We are clothed in His righteousness. Is that awesome or what?

Now in verse twenty-eight, Paul is saying as a result of this, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. We are all now "one in Christ Jesus". But the word "one" does not technically refer to equality. Rather it is a reference to unity. We are all "one" body of Christ, spiritually-speaking. We are all now Christians and members of the body of Christ without spiritual distinction.

Now there is implicit in this a note of equality. But it is not equality of roles in the home and church that is being proclaimed here. It is rather that men and women are equally important and valuable, spiritually-speaking, in Christ. God does not value the salvation of a man over a woman, and in Christ, a man is not more important or valuable than a woman. Now men and women are both "...heirs according to promise" (v. 29) (see also I Peter 3:7).

The spiritual reality now is that women are "coheirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). This does empower them to serve in ways that were denied them under the Law, and they now must be treated with same respect and dignity as men in the church and home. But this verse cannot be used as a proof text that women are free in Christ to do or be whatever they want. This is not an issue being addressed here. The issues are salvation, spiritual unity and our spiritual position in Christ. The practical implications of all this for women have to be worked out from other passages in the New Testament, and it is not within the scope of this post to discuss these. Suffice it to say that the New Testament passages regarding the roles of men and women have been seriously misinterpreted by both traditionalists and feminists, in my opinion. But as I said, that is another post (or posts).

My point here is that as wonderful and liberating as Galatians 3:28 truly is, it simply does not teach what many today says it does. But what is does say was revolutionary in Paul's day, and still is in ours. We as Christians are still struggling to live up to the incredible ideal that it proclaims. May God help us to make greater progress for His glory, and the benefit of Christian men and women everywhere!

The Case For The Resurrection - Matthew 28:6

"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said..." Matthew 28:6

Other religions do not necessarily rise or fall upon a single historical event, but Christianity does. As Paul says to the Corinthians, "...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..."(I Corinthians 15:17). So the resurrection is of paramount importance to the Christian faith. It is also one of the key issues that sets it apart from all other major religions. None of the founders of the world's great religions ever claimed to be God, but Jesus did (see Mark 14:61-62), and all the other founders of world religions are dead and buried. Only Jesus claimed He would rise from the dead in three days, and did. Can we prove this? Not in the sense that it can proved so definitively that no human can deny or disbelieve it. But yes, in the sense that it can be proven far beyond reasonable doubt.

In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona explain that there are five "minimal facts" about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Minimal facts" are based on data that is "...granted by virtually all scholars on the subject even skeptical ones." These five minimal facts are:

1. Jesus' Death by Crucifixion
2. The Disciples' Belief That Jesus Appeared to Them
3. The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the Persecutor
4. The Conversion of James, the Skeptic
5. The Empty Tomb

Habermas and Licona explain that these five minimal facts form a compelling argument for the resurrection that cannot be explained away. That doesn't mean that people don't try, or that people have to believe, but what it means is that our faith in Christ is not a blind or even an unreasonable faith. It is built on a very solid, logical and historical foundation, but it is still faith. It requires a measure of belief beyond the evidence. We still have to step out and say, "I believe in the resurrection", because it is unique in the history of mankind. Nothing like it has ever occurred before or since. This fact can lead a person to either doubt it or embrace it. We have to decide for ourselves. Just in case you were wondering, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now more than ever. I strongly encourage you to do so as well. No issue is more important in the entire universe. Happy Resurrection Sunday!

It Is Finished - John 19:30

"When He had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished'. With that, He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." John 19:30

As we approach Good Friday, the day when our Lord died for us on the cross, I am reminded of John 19:30. This is the verse that tells us that just before He died, Christ cried out, "It is finished!"

Now a lot of people have pointed out that this cry of victory was Jesus exulting in His finished work. He had accomplished the task that the Father sent Him to do (see John 17:4). He had borne the sins of the world and paid for our forgiveness with the sacrifice of His own body and blood. This is the most important point and we need to remember it often, not just on Good Friday. Having stated the obvious, there are still a few other truths that not everyone realizes (I didn't at first).

First, when the verse says He "...gave up His spirit", we need to recognize that Jesus was not just involuntarily succombing to death. He was actively choosing at that particular moment to die. As Jesus stated earlier in His ministry, no one could take His life away, He would lay it down by His own authority, and He would raise Himself back up by His own authority (see John 10:18). In Matthew 27:50, the literal translation is that He "sent it away", referring to His spirit. Only the Son of God could choose the exact moment His spirit would depart. No mere mortal could do this. When His work was done, Christ chose to die.

The second very interesting truth related to this verse is that Jesus took a drink of "sour wine" offered to Him by a soldier in response to Him saying, "I am thirsty". We know from Matthew 27:45-50, a parallel passage, that this occurred at the ninth hour. The Jewish ninth hour was 3 pm in the afternoon; the time of the afternoon sacrifice in the temple. The point is that when an animal, probably a lamb, was being sacrificed as a temporary covering for sin, the Lamb of God was atoning for the sins of the entire world. No longer would animal sacrifices be necessary. Jesus had paid it all! These sacrifices continued until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD because of the ignorance and rebellion of sinful men. But in truth, the work of redemption was done. Hallelujah, what a Savior!

When The Bible Is Not Explicit - Romans 14:5

"Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14:5

What do you believe and what do you do when the Bible is not explicit about a certain belief or practice? There are a lot of things in this world that are not explicitly commanded or prohibited in Scripture.For instance, years ago a man in my church was convinced that VCRs were unbiblical. But when I asked him for a chapter and verse, not surprisingly, he could not show me a single verse that said, "Thou shalt not use a VCR." His belief was that they were an instrument of the devil, but he could not back it up with an explicit prohibition. I know that VCRs can be used for sinful purposes, but so can a lot of other devices. The truth is they can also be used to glorify God. The point is that when the Bible does not specifically state that a given belief or practice is right or wrong, Romans 14:5 is our verse. We have to make a decision.

Now we can decide to never do or believe anything that isn't explicitly commanded or positively modeled in Scripture. This is a very commendable and safe choice, and some people attempt to do this. But what I have found over the years is that this is difficult, if not impossible to do in real life.

People have tried to convince me, for instance, that our church should only practice what is explicitly commanded or modeled in Scripture, which sounds very, very right. But these same people will use something like a DVD to get their message out. Where is that in Scripture? Where does it say that it is okay for believers to use DVDs. You can check the whole Bible, but it is not there and that's the inconsistency. No one I know consistently follows specific commands and prohibitions in Scripture only. There are too many areas of life where God has allowed us to make choices. The question is how will we make these choices.

When the Bible is not explicit, we can't just say that we can do whatever we want. We have to follow biblical principles that inform and govern our choices.

• Does it glorify God? (I Corinthians 10:31)
• Are we being controlled by it? (I Corinthians 6:12)
• Could it be a stumbling block to a weaker Christian? (Romans 14:13)
• Does it make for peace and the building up of others? (Romans 14:19)
• Does it build us up spiritually (I Corinthians 10:23)

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but the point is that before we do or believe anything that is not explicit in Scripture, we need to honestly ask these and other questions and determine whether what we are about to do or believe is consistent with biblical principles. So these matters should never be settled quickly, easily or emotionally. We must search the Scriptures; search our own thoughts and motives; and then specifically ask the Lord what He wants us to do. Only when we have done this can we be "fully convinced in our own minds" and then proceed. We have to have a "conviction" based on "faith" that what we are doing is right, otherwise the Bible says that what we are doing or believing is sin (see Romans 14:22-23). But when we have done this and have our conviction, no other Christian has the right to judge us (see Romans 14:1-4). This does not mean that others have no right to ask questions of us. It also does not preclude others pointing us to additional Scripture principles that may change our conviction. But ultimately, each of us will give a verbal account to the Lord some day for our convictions (see Romans 14:10-12), and until then, when it comes to beliefs and practices not explicitly addressed in Scripture, no one has the right to say that we are wrong.

Is Lent Biblical? Matthew 4:1-2

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He has fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry." Matthew 4:1-2

These days it is becoming more and more fashionable for evangelical protestants to observe Lent. By Lent I am referring to the forty days leading up to Easter as a time of self sacrifice and soul-searching. People observe Lent very differently, but generally-speaking today it usually involves giving up some favorite habit, possession, food or drink for the duration of Lent. Am I making a definitive judgment about the motives of those observing Lent? I am in no position to do that. Nor am I saying that observing lent is categorically wrong. When something is not specifically commanded or prohibited by Scripture, we as Christians should not make a definite judgment about it (see Romans 14:4-6). But having said this, I am still concerned about the observance of Lent.

First of all, as just stated, we have no command to observe Lent. Yes, Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days to fast and to prepare for His temptation by Satan, but this example does not relate to us unless we are able to discern that Satan is going to attack us on Easter and we feel the need to be prayed up to meet the challenge.

This brings up the biblical practice of fasting. My father (who has a doctorate in theology) doubts that fasting is even for today. But even if that position is rejected out of hand, there is still no command in Scripture for us to fast. Fasting is something that we can do voluntarily to be more focused in prayer and to draw closer in our walk with the Lord. I have zero problem with that. But when people publicly tell people what they are giving up for Lent, this seems dangerously close to what Christ condemns in fasting (see Matthew 6:1-6).

Also, there is a danger that some Christians might observe Lent and sacrifice something because they think that in doing this they are sanctifying or purifying themselves in some way. This is all well and good if you are a practicing Catholic. It fits fine with Catholic theology. But if one is a committed Protestant, following the principles of the Reformation, and more important, Holy Scripture, then we have to remember that Christ paid for all our sins on the cross (I Peter 2:24), and we do not need to do any penance or in any way make payment for our sins. Christ paid it all! We do nothing but trust in the merit of Christ (to use a good Catholic term).

Now before anyone says it, or course, we should live holy lives and avoid sin at all costs. But that is different from us picking something to give up for forty days that is not prohibited by God's Word. If God says in Scripture that we are not to do something, we should give it up 365 days a year. But us arbitrarily picking something to give up is at best unnecessary, and at worse, us deciding to play God and make a decision to give up something that God does not tell us to give up.

My point is this, Lent observance is not explicitly biblical, and depending on your motivation and how you observe it, it can definitely be unbiblical. Am I saying you should not do it? No, but I am sounding a word of warning. We should not do Lent because it is "cool"; because we are spiritually bored; because others are doing it; or because we think we are making up for some deficiency in the sacrifice of our Lord. We should only observe Lent if we are fully convinced that God wants us to do it (see Romans 14:5,23), and our purpose is to abstain from something that may hinder our devotion to God or led us or someone else into sin. But this should be true for us every day of our lives.

How Jesus Presented the Truth - John 3-4

In certain evangelical circles today there is a debate about how we as Christians should present God's truth to people. Some say that we should be theocentric, that is, we should never begin with man and his felt needs, but always with God and what He says are man's real needs, even if unfelt. Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 would certainly give support to this position.

Nicodemus comes to Jesus under the cover of darkness, and says that "...we know that you have come from God..." (vs. 2). Nicodemus barely gets the words out of his mouth when Jesus very firmly tells him that he must be born again (vs. 3-5). Our Lord then proceeds to answer his questions and concerns about this concept and then finishes by clearly pointing to Himself as the only means of salvation and eternal life (vs. 13-15). Jesus is very direct. He focuses on unfelt needs and presents the truth to Nicodemus. He starts with God's truth about our need to be born again, and then ends up pointing to Himself as the sole solution to this great need.

If one only looks at this passage, one would come away from Scripture thinking that this is God's ordained pattern for presenting the truth; a purely theocentric approach with no concern for what people consider their needs to be. But then immediately after this historical account, we have the one about the woman at the well in John 4, and our Lord's approach to her is radically different.

Instead of immediately telling her she is a sinner who needs His help, Jesus asks her for a drink of water (v. 7). He does this to break down a cultural and social barrier between men and women in that day, as well as one between Jews and  Samaritans. Having confronted those issues with a few simple words, our Lord quickly addresses her felt need. She didn't want to have to keep coming to the well in the heat of the day to draw water. Christ offers her "living water" (vs.10-14). When the woman asks for the "living water" (v. 15), Jesus brings up the issue of her sinfulness, but in a very gentle way. He could have blasted her for her many husbands and for living with a man outside of wedlock, but instead He gently makes her realize that He is aware of her sinful state (vs.16-18). Some think at this point she trys to divert attention from herself by bringing up a divisive question about worship (vs.19-20). I personally think that she genuinely wanted to know the truth and was testing Him to see if He really was a "prophet". When the woman brings up the subject of the "Messiah", Jesus finally reveals to her that He is indeed the Messiah (v.16). The result as we already know is that she believed in Jesus and became His first witness to the Samaritans (vs. 28-30).

The lessons from these two chapters are that, first of all, we can and should approach people who are familiar with God's truth, but unconverted, with a theocentric approach. As a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus should have been aware of his need for a spiritual birth, but he wasn't (v.10), and so Jesus is loving, but much more direct with him. Our Lord starts with the unfelt need and then points to Himself as the solution. With the woman at the well, Jesus takes an anthropocentric approach. He starts with her felt need and then moves systematically to revealing Himself as the only one who can meet her deepest need.

The bottomline is that each of these methods is biblical and utilized by Christ Himself. Neither is more biblical than the other. But what is of paramount importance is where we end up. Regardless of whether one begins with felt needs or unfelt needs, the conclusion of the matter has to end up with a clear presentation of Jesus Christ as the only solution to men and women's greatest needs. This is the biggest problem with those today who begin with felt needs. In too many cases, they attempt to address the felt need, but they don't end with Jesus. They often offer humanistic solutions mixed with scripture, and that will not ultimately work.

Those who advocate the theocentric approach can also be guilty of neglecting Jesus. One can talk about "God" a lot, but unless you specifically point to Christ as the One who is sufficient for every need, we have failed to present the whole truth. May God help us to be discerning and faithful in how we present His truth. But regardless, it is ultimately about Christ! If He is not the focus and conclusion of our message, we have not presented God's truth correctly.

How Jesus Treated Women - John 4

Over the past three decades I have read many books and listened to many opinions about our Lord's view of women. A lot of people have tried to portray Jesus as a social revolutionary who totally went against all established social norms, and completely liberated women so that in Christianity women could essentially do or be anything that men can do or be.

The truth is that Jesus never went as far as some like to think. He never included women in the twelve disciples. He never made statements that clearly indicated that the roles for men and women were interchangeable. I am aware of the claims of the Gnostics, but even in their own literature, the elevation of Mary Magdalene and the liberation of women is far from certain. The statements are very obscure and contradictory.

But the other truth is that Jesus was revolutionary in how he treated women. Jesus was shocking to other Jewish men in how he related to them and allowed them to participate in His mission to present Himself as the Messiah.

In John 4 we see Jesus deliberately passing through Samaria when most devout Jews would have detoured around it, and He sits down by a well near the city of Sychar at the hottest time of the day, high noon. When a Samaritan woman comes out to draw water, He says to her "give me a drink" (vs. 7). Now to us today, this hardly sounds revolutionary, but in Christ's day it was.

First of all, "good" Jews did not speak or have contact with Samaritans. The Samaritans were half-breeds who were considered "dogs" along with Gentiles, and they were looked at as theological heretics as well. Plus this Samaritan was a woman.

 Jewish men considered women inferior to men in every way. The prayer that every devout Jewish man prayed every day included explicit thanks to God that he was created a man, and not a woman. Jewish men did not talk to women any more than was absolutely necessary. Even married Jewish men did not talk to their wives in public as a matter of rule. They certainly would never talk to a Samaritan woman. That was unthinkable. This is why when the disciples returned and realized that Jesus had been talking with a Samaritan woman, they "...marveled that He had been speaking with a woman" (vs. 27). They simply could not process this in their Jewish male minds.

But Jesus does a lot more than simply speak to her. He begins a dialogue with her that culminates with Him revealing to her that He is the Messiah (vs. 25-26). At this point she believes Him and goes back into the city to be a witness for Christ. As a result, "...many of the Samaritan believed in Him because of the word of the woman..." (vs. 39).

So, Jesus teaches this sinful woman (see vs. 18) about Himself, which was considered a complete waste of time in His day. Women were not taught spiritual truth because they were considered too dumb and sinful to make any significant use of such knowledge. But Christ not only instructs her about spiritual things, but He also uses her as a witness to her own people. Again, in that day, women were not allowed to testify in legal settings. Their testimony was worthless in court. They were seen as too sinful and unreliable. Yet Christ employs her as his first and primary witness to the Samaritan people.

The point is that although Jesus did not break with every social norm, He broke with several in regard to women. He treated them as human beings with value and intelligence. He was willing to interact with them as He did with men. He was also willing to teach women (see Luke 10:39), and send them out as witnesses for Himself. Most importantly, He made it clear that the salvation of a woman was every bit as important to Him as the salvation of a man. In this passage Jesus demonstrated the truth of what Paul proclaimed in Galatians 3:28, that is, that God looks at men and women as equally important in a salvific sense. In terms of salvation, we are all one in Christ.

No man ever treated women more lovingly, more fairly, and more respectfully than Jesus Christ. No woman could ever have a better friend and supporter than He. Now if the rest of us guys could just follow His example!

The Victory Parade - II Corinthians 2:14-16

"But thanks be to God, who always leads us in His triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma of life to life. And who is adequate for these things."

This is a wonderful passage for people like me who feel at times we have really made a huge mistake. Paul had written a strong letter to the Corinthians, and he was really struggling with how it would be received (see v. 13). He was no doubt second-guessing himself and probably feeling like a loser. Then he remembered that in Christ he was a winner. He was reminded by God's Spirit that all of us who are in Christ are a part of an enormous victory parade.

When Paul says that God "always leads us in His triumph in Christ", he is alluding to the victory parades sanctioned by the Romans emperors whenever there was a significant victory by the legionaries or navy. Some people think that we Christians are the captives in the parade, and there is some merit to the proposal (see I Corinthians 4:9), but I believe the best understanding in the context, and when one examines the historical date, is that we are in fact the victorious soldiers.

The Roman victory parade was a magnificent affair that lasted a day or more. It began with the Roman magistrates leading the procession, followed closely by Romans senators. Then came the trumpeters in front of slaves carrying all the wonderful spoils of the battle. White oxen proceeded the king of the defeated country, if he was captured as a result of the victory. Behind him walked all the dejected soldiers, ashamed and vanquished. Immediately after these captured troops were the victorious Roman officers followed by musicians and dancers celebrating the victory. The Roman general rode in a chariot with a slave who kept whispering in his ear (according to General Patton) "all fame is fleeting". Finally, the soldiers who had actually fought and won the battle brought up the rear, soaking up the cheers and accolades of the massive crowds who turned out to greet them.

This is the picture Paul was given, and he in turn gives it us to encourage us that even if we sin, even if we really blow it on a particular occasion, we are still victors in Christ. We may not be the best soldier and we may not have fought the hardest. We may have even failed at key moments in the battle, but we are all still a part of the victory celebration.What a glorious encouragement!

Oh yes, to those who reject our Lord we smell like "death" (v. 16). But to those "who are being saved" we smell like "life". And to God "we are a fragrance of Christ" because we as Christians are clothed with His righteousness (see Galatians 3:27). This passage is always a great encouragement to me. I hope it is for you as well. Remember, even if we fail at times, even if we lose some battles, we are still on the winning side with the Lord Jesus Christ!

The Ultimate Issue in the Universe -- The Book of Job

A lot of people think that the book of Job is about suffering. That is surely a major theme. Others say it is the sovereignty of God. Again, no doubt, a major theme of the book. But I believe that the overall subject of the book of Job is God's wisdom and integrity.

Job was almost certainly the first book of the Bible written. Genesis goes back to the beginning of creation, but Moses wrote it long after Job was here and gone. In the orthodox Hebrews scriptures, Job is rightly placed first. In my opinion, not just because of its ancient roots, but because it addresses the most important issue in the universe: Was God's plan to create a race of people in His own image to voluntarily love and serve Him a sham or a success? And more specifically, was this plan wise and honest or foolish and manipulative?

In the beginning of the book we see that Satan is briefly allowed into God's presence and God points to Job as Exhibit A of how well His plan is working. Satan immediately responds by questioning the very foundation of God's plan. Satan's thesis is that Job only respects God because God is good to him. Satan claims that if God would take everything away from Job, he would no longer love and trust Him. God allows Satan to take away Job's wealth and children, which Satan did. Still Job respected God. Then Satan came back to God and said that if God took away Job's health, he would turn on Him. Again God allowed Satan to carry this out. But Job responded righteously once again. God's wisdom and integrity was upheld and Satan's accusation was crushed. But then beginning in chapter three, we have the account of Job's struggle to come to grips with why all this has happened to him. Job's friends are initially a comfort to him, but then they begin to accuse him of sinful behavior. He protests and claims that he is innocent of any serious wrongdoing. Along the way, they press their accusations more strongly, and Job defends himself and openly wishes that he, or someone else, could make his case before God. After all the parties have had their say, God finally speaks up in chapters 38-41, and asks Job over seventy questions. All of which are designed to demonstrate that Job does not have sufficient experience and knowledge about God's creative work to question God about anything. Job responds by saying "I repent" (42:6), but he is not admitting to sins that he was accused of, but rather the sin of thinking he had the right or wherewithal to question God's actions toward him. He relinquishes all rights to question what God has done or to insist on an answer from God about his situation.

In the end, God restored Job's health, wealth and family (42:7-17), although He was under no obligation to do so. What's more, God never explained to Job, according to this account, why Job had to go through such horrific trials. And that's the point, God created us to love and trust Him. God being God does not have to explain Himself. He may, as He has done in this book, explain things to a certain extent. He has given us general insight as to why bad things may happen to us. It could be temporal discipline for our sin. But it could also be that in the on-going contest between Himself and Satan, He is using us as an example of someone who will trust, love and obey Him no matter what. God may point to us as more proof that His creative plan was wise and legitimate. Hopefully we can pass the test as Job did. So help us, Lord!

The Evidence for Joseph - Genesis 37:3

"Now Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age, and he made him a coat of many colors." Genesis 37:3

Over a dozen years ago I was introduced to an amazing book, Pharaoh of the Kings, by Keith Small, a fellow graduate of Dallas Seminary, and an evangelical scholar in regard to the Quran. The book was actually written by a British Egyptologist named David Rohl. Rohl discovered that the accepted scholarly chronology for Egyptian history was fatally flawed. He figured out, quite unintentionally, that the biblical record of Egyptian history was complete accurate, and the conventional dating of Egyptian history was seriously wrong. This is not the first time that the Bible has been vindicated by archeology and unbiased historical research, and it won't be the last. But Rohl's story of how he discovered the truth and found the Bible to be entirely true is breathtaking. I have read the account more than once, and every time I do, I lapse into praise for God's sovereign preservation of the truth through His Word. But what I want to focus on in this post is how the person of Joseph is confirmed by Rohl's research.

A lot of scholars and researchers in the last couple of centuries have doubted the existence of biblical figures like Abraham, David and Joseph. The discovery of the Ebla tablets confirmed the life of Abraham. Several years ago a royal artifact was found in Israel referring to the "house of David", and then Rohl comes along to discover the tomb of Joseph in exactly the area of Egypt we would expect it to be.

The Bible tells us that Joseph was initially buried in Egypt (Genesis 50:25-26), but his bones were carried to the Promised Land per his instructions (Exodus 13:19). So, if the tomb of Joseph was found, it should not contain any bodies or coffins, but it should give evidence of his life and success, and that is exactly what Rohl found.

Rohl discovered a tomb with a statue of a man sitting on a regal perch with a non-Egyptian haircut, a "throw stick" in his hand (a symbol that he was a foreigner), skin color different from Egyptians, and best of all, a coat of many colors. The statue had been vandalized, not surprisingly, but all the evidence points decisively to it being the tomb of Joseph.

I am not doing justice to the overwhelming body of evidence that Rohl uncovers and lays out in his book. But suffice it to say, there is no doubt that Joseph lived and was as wildly successful as the Bible says. There is also no doubt that once again we should trust the Bible no matter what men propose or say differently. God's Word is truly magnificent in its accuracy, even in the details of a man's garment. The lesson is this, don't doubt God's Word! As Paul says, "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." (Romans 3:4). Amen!

Jesus Defines Hypocrisy - Matthew 23:27

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like white-washed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."

A lot of people today like to define hypocrisy this way: saying one thing but doing another. Which does sound hypocritical. But the problem with that definition is that it makes all of us hypocrites. All of us have moral ideals and aspirations. None of us live up perfectly to even the standards we set for ourselves, and of course, no one lives up to God's standard which is sinless perfection (see Romans 3:23). All of us fail on a regular basis to live completely up to the moral and ethical standards we proclaim, if we are honest with ourselves. So by the current, popular definition, we're all hypocrites! But Jesus has a different definition.

In Matthew chapter twenty-three, Christ speaks out against the hypocrisy of the "scribes and Pharisees" (v. 2). These were two of the established religious leadership groups in Christ's day. The scribes were in charge of copying and maintaining the sacred scrolls of the Old Testament, while the Pharisees ruled over the synagogues and taught the masses about strict adherence to the Law. Jesus says that "...they say things and do not do them" (v. 3), which seems to support the popular definition today of hypocrisy. But as one studies this chapter more, it becomes clear that their problem was not just an occasional, unintentional moral lapse, but a continual, intentional desire to cover up who they really were. These religious leaders wanted to appear to be something they were not.

The reference to "whitewashed tombs" would be very familiar to the Jewish people in Christ's day. Before the major feast day of Passover, the tombs along the road to Jerusalem were painted white so that pilgrims coming to the holy city could easily avoid them. Touching or even coming too close to a tomb would render them ceremonially unclean, and thus, unfit to participate in the Passover. The white tombs looked beautiful, but on the inside was death and decay.

Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees deliberately painted themselves as "righteous", but inside they were full of "lawlessness" (v. 28), and they knew it. So Christ's definition of hypocrisy is someone pretending to be righteous, when they know they are not, and they have no intention of doing what is right. This goes along with the meaning of the word "hypocrite" as "one who pretends" or "puts on a mask".

All of us as Christians are going to fail to completely live up to the standards of God's Word on a regular basis. This does not make us a hypocrite. It means we are still in the flesh, and an unfinished product. This is not an excuse for us to sin, but when we do, and we will, we should admit it and strive to do better with God's help. Pretending that we don't sin or have it all together spiritually-speaking when we don't is hypocrisy. Some Christians are guilty of this, but many are not. If you are in the latter category, do not get down on yourself or let people call you a hypocrite. But humbly keep striving to live for your Lord!

Overcome Evil with Good - Romans 12:21

By now you have probably heard that the lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church has failed at the Supreme Court. Amazingly eight justices supported the right of this church to picket funerals and other events with outrageously hateful and offensive signs. I wasn't totally surprised they won, but the Supreme Court rarely is in this much agreement about anything.

Of course, a lot of people are disappointed and are expressing some very strong emotional responses online and on the air. Some of the responses to this decision and to this church are as hateful as anything they have ever done or said. I expect that from people who do not know Christ, but I hope we as Christians can be more careful and measured in our response. Romans 12:21 comes to mind:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Christians are not supposed to be haters. We are lovers, not by nature, but because we have been loved. God is not a hater (see this post) and He teaches us not to respond to hate with hate, but with love (see Matthew 5:44). There is a genuine temptation for us to join the chorus of hate against a group that claims to speak for our God, but does so in a manner that grossly distorts His message (where is the "good news"?), and puts all of us Christians in a terrible light. What I am saying is, don't hate them! That puts you on their level and makes you as guilty of misrepresenting our God as them.

Having said that, there is a positive aspect to all this. I am not excusing the hateful behavior in any way. Nor am I saying that I want it to continue under the guise of free speech. But the truth is that if the Supreme Court can allow this kind of hateful speech to be protected, that is good for pastors like me and churches like mine.

I have been concerned for some time that publicly saying, "Jesus is the only way to God", will at some point be considered "hate speech". Of course, I don't believe that it is. It is in fact the most loving thing we can do. We are helping people to understand and come to grips with the exclusive claim of Christ (see John 14:6). Until people realize that Jesus is not just another path to God, they cannot make an informed decision about who he is and what they are going to do in regard to Him. Many churches and pastors are either waffling on this or have become entirely silent about it. But I believe it is the most important issue of the twenty-first century. I intend to keep talking about it, and I am pleased that I will be protected in doing so, at least for a while longer. For that I am thankful, in spite of the other extremely negative aspects of the court's decision.

In case you are wondering, this is the essential Christian message for today and every day until the Lord returns:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should 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).

This is our message of God's love, and it is genuinely one of love. But it is also a message that Jesus, the Son of God, is the only way for every man, woman and child to experience that love forever. I will continue to proclaim this message of love as long as I live, protection or not, but I am thankful that at least for today, I am free to proclaim it! Thank you, Jesus!

For Israel or For Me? Jeremiah 29:11

"For I know the plans that I have for you", declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11

A lot of Christians today claim this verse as a direct promise from God that He has good intentions towards them, and that no matter how bad things are at the moment, God is going to help and/or materially prosper them at some point in this life.

Other Christians say that this verse has little or no application to believers today. They say it is a promise to ethnic Israel that was fulfilled when their seventy years of captivity in Babylon was over and they were returned by God to their land. This verse they say has historical value for contemporary believers to show us how God was faithful to Israel in the past, which should encourage us to trust God, but this promise is in no way directed toward Christians in the twenty-first century.

I believe there is truth and error in both of these positions. Interpreting and applying the Old Testament continues to be problematic for many believers today. They struggle to understand what applies to them in the Old Testament and how it applies to them. This verse is a good test case and example for us of how to apply the Old Testament scriptures.

First of all, in the context, the ethnic nation of Israel is clearly being addressed (v. 10). This is also a specific promise that the nation would be returned to its native land, and that God would prosper them materially after seventy years of captivity.It is an unconditional promise, but God also predicts that Israel as a nation will pray and seek Him at that time (vs. 12-13). So this verse cannot be taken as a direct promise to believers today, nor can the specifics be applied directly to contemporary believers, i.e., that God promises to prosper us materially. This promise is first and directly in all details to the nation of Israel. But that does not mean it has little or no application to Christians today.

Sometimes promises in the Old Testament are repeated in the New Testament but with different applications. Romans 8:28 says that "we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose." This verse is similar to Jeremiah 29:11 in that it is addressed to God's people, which today is the Church, Jews and Gentiles together in one body (see Ephesians chapters 2 and 3). It is also a promise that God has a plan and purpose for good for believers, and that He will ultimately make everything that happens to us work out for our good (and, of course, His glory). So when certain promises are repeated in the New Testament we can rightly apply the Old Testament promise but only with the New Testament application.

But even without a specific repeat of an Old Testament promise, there is always an application for us today. Paul told Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (I Timothy 3:16). The New Testament was not yet finished or readily available for most believers when Paul wrote this. For sure Paul is speaking in large part about the Old Testament scriptures when he said "all Scripture is...profitable for teaching." This means that all scripture is spiritually beneficial to teach us what to believe about God and how He deals with His children. The point is that there is application for us in every Old Testament scripture. There is a timeless principle of truth for us that we need to discover in every Old Testament verse or passage. I'm not saying it is always obvious. Usually it will take some study and prayer to discern it, but it is there for us if we are willing to do the spiritual work.

I would say that the timeless, spiritual, applicational principle of Jeremiah 29:11 is this: God always has a good and loving plan for His people so that we can be sure that we have a wonderful future ahead of us, no matter what is happening to us at this moment.

Can Women Speak in Church? - I Corinthians 14:34-35

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." I Corinthians 14:34-35

This passage is very problematic to say the least. But if one holds to a high view of Scripture one cannot dismiss it out of hand as simply wrong or a product of Paul's rabbinical training, as many people do today. It also will not do to understand it as prohibiting women from prophesying as Paul has already allowed for this provided their heads are covered (see I Corinthians 11:5). It could be an absolute prohibition against women saying anything, at anytime, during the worship of the church, which is undeniably the context. But if this is the case, it would be the only place an absolute prohibition of this kind occurs in the New Testament, and it would be contrary to I Corinthians 11:5 which appears to allow women to speak in the service if their heads are covered. Is there another possibility that connects this with something also prohibited by Paul in another place in scripture? The answer I believe is yes! But this answer was not discovered by me, but by a woman (gasp!) named Susan Foh.

Susan Foh in her book entitled, Woman and the Word of God, correctly states, that in the first century Jews and Greeks used the Socratic method to teach in synagogues and churches. The Socratic method involved a person leading the teaching part of the service by fielding questions from those in the congregation. This was not the only method used in the early church services, but it may have been the main one, and in Corinth, it may have been the primary teaching method. In Acts 20:7 the word "dialogue" is used for Paul's teaching on that occasion. This term is used in other places in Acts in regard to teaching or speaking the truth as well.

The point is that Paul clearly prohibited women from teaching during the worship of the church (see I Timothy 2:12). If the Socratic method of dialogue was being used regularly in the Corinthian church services, then Paul is explaining in I Corinthians 14:34-35 that women were not to participate in this. Not only were they not to lead it, but if they had questions, they were to ask their husbands at home who could either answer the questions themselves or bring them up in the next teaching time at church.

As I see it, this explanation fits well with the other things that Paul says about women and worship, and it also fits well with what we know was historically true in the early church, and finally, it makes perfect sense of the actual words of I Corinthians 14:34-35.

Paul is not prohibiting women from giving a testimony, reading Scripture, prophesying (if properly covered) singing, praying aloud (if properly covered), speaking in tongues or quietly correcting her children, if necessary, during the worship of the church. But he is saying what he says elsewhere that women are not to teach when the local church is gathered for worship. Outside the worship service of the church women are not prohibited from teaching that I know of; and in this case, I believe that a woman taught me what the Scriptures are truly saying in I Corinthians 14:34,35.

"Love Wins" - Hebrews 1:9

There is a Rob Bell book coming out soon entitled, Love Wins. Of course, I haven't read it yet as it is it not even in print. But I have seen the promo video and it is pretty clear from the video that Rob Bell is going to be articulating the position that we cannot be sure about who will be in heaven with God. He uses Gandhi, a Hindu, as an example of someone that we can't say  for sure is in or out. I don't know exactly what he is going to say but if the title of the book and the video is any indication, he is going to say in the end, "love wins". Let me say right now..I agree. The love of God is going to win in the end. No doubt about it. But what kind of love are we talking about?

Hebrews 1:9 says that "Thou [God] hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness..." This is a quote from Psalm 45:7, which is an Old Testament passage, but the writer of Hebrews includes this truth in the New Testament. So, God's Word, Old and New Testament, says that "God loves righteousness". But this is a little abstract. What about people?

Psalm 11:7 says, "For the Lord is righteous; He loves righteousness; the upright will behold His face." Here the Scriptures state again that "God loves righteousness" and people who are "upright" i.e., righteous, will see Him someday. That is, they will be in His presence in heaven. The Bible says that no mere mortal in human flesh can look upon God and survive (see Exodus 33:20, I Timothy 6:16). So God loves righteousness and righteous people.

But the problem is that no one is righteous, not even one person (see Romans 3:10). There is no one who has ever lived that is righteous. Not Mother Teresa, not Gandhi, St. Francis of Assisi or anyone else you can mention was inherently or completely righteous on their own merits except the God/Man, Jesus Christ. He alone was a perfectly sinless person (Hebrews 4:15). That is why we must put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ in order for God to consider us righteous in Him (see II Corinthians 5:20).

Is God's love going to win in the end? Yes, no doubt about it. As Ephesians 1:4-5 says,

"In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved."

God loves righteousness and God loves righteous people. But there are none. So, God in love sent His Son, "the Beloved" one, to die in our place so that we can be righteous and He can love us eternally. So love is definitely going to win. What do you know, Rob Bell and I finally agree on something!

The Danger of Confessions and Creeds - II Peter 2:1

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." II Peter 2:1

My father had a very well-known and renowned New Testament scholar as a professor when he was in seminary. He really respected this man and looked up to him in a number of ways. But some years ago this same professor got enamored with the Westminster Confession of Faith and allowed it to replace the Bible as his ultimate source of truth. One of the doctrines he began to promote was limited atonement, even though that doctrine is contrary to the doctrinal statement signed by this professor, and more importantly, contrary to a number of Scriptures.

My father had the unhappy task of interviewing his former mentor about this situation. He asked this man about how he would reconcile his new-found belief witih several scripture passages, but one in particular was very telling.

I remember my father relating this scene to me several years ago. He was sitting across from this professor and looked him right in the eyes and asked him, "What about I Peter 2:1....you're a Greek scholar. Doesn't the word agorazw normally mean to "buy out of the marketplace"? My father said, "He just smiled at me". He knew that this word used in II Peter 2:1 clearly indicates that Jesus Christ our "master" paid for the redemption of the false teachers referenced in this verse with His own blood. And these "false teachers" are not among the elect as the verse tells us explicitly of their fate. This man had taught the truth of unlimited atonement to students like my father. But when believers begin to buy into theological systems and man-made creeds that are logical and reasonable, but not completely biblical, this is what happens to even very fine scholars.

The truth is that limited atonement is not heresy, and a lot of good Christians hold to it (including some of my close relatives). Depending on how far one takes it applicationally it may or may not be a problem in presenting the gospel. My concern is that it is a classic example of a doctrine that logically follows from the biblical doctrine of election, but it doesn't follow biblically. There are several passages that speak against it explicitly like II Corinthians 5:19 (see this post). Someone just pointed out Hebrews 2:9 to me the other day which says, "He [Christ] might taste death for everyone." But II Peter 2:1 is one of the very toughest passages to fit with the limited atonement view. I've read whole books by people trying to explain away the clear teaching of this verse. Someone tried to prove that the word agorazw means "to create". But it doesn't mean that in Greek, maybe in Martian. Others have tried to say that this verse is a reference to God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Nice try, but the subject is "false teachers", not Israel.

The bottomline is that it is a temptation for a lot of us to rely too heavily on theological systems or man-made confessions. But as the reformers proclaimed, we need to base all our doctrine on "sola scriptura". And that means all of scripture, not just the passages we like or that support our particular position. If  there are a number of verses that do not support a specific doctrine, we need to re-study it, and until then, hold it less dogmatically.

Stop Quenching the Spirit - I Thessalonians 5:19

In I Thessalonians 5:12-22 the apostle Paul gives a series of brief commands to the church at Thessalonica. Most of what he said to this local church was extremely positive. Even though they were relatively new believers, Paul doesn't do a lot of correcting at this point. Mainly he commends them for their faith, love and godly example (see 1:2-10). Even this series of commands near the end of the letter is generally positive and not accusatory. But in verse nineteen he says, "Do not quench the Spirit." Now because this is a present imperative, it can be referring to action already happening and thus could be translated, "stop quenching the Spirit." Because Paul takes the time to specifically address this, and follows it with an admonition not "despise prophetic utterances" (v. 20), it is almost certain in my mind that the Thessalonian believers were already quenching the work of the Spirit in this area. For some reason they were not willing to accept the legitimate prophetic work of the Spirit during this early time in the church when the canon of Scripture was still being given and written. What I want to focus on today is a few key lessons from this verse.

First, even believers who are mostly walking in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), and generally living exemplary Christian lives can be suppressing the ministry of the Spirit in one or two areas of their lives. We cannot ever think that we are so spiritually mature or obedient that we are above doing this. Even so called "spirit-filled" believers like Swaggart and Bakker were guilty of suppressing the Spirit in their lives. So this is a spiritual warning to us all..no exceptions!

Second, the verb itself does not limit the length of time that the quenching could have been going on. In other words, the Thessalonians could have been quenching the Spirit for an extended time. My experience as a pastor indicates that Christians can say "no" to the Spirit in certain areas of their lives for months, even years. This is not to say it will continue indefinitely without the Lord directly intervening, but I have seen it go on for long periods of time in certain people's lives, including people who I am absolutely certain are saved as Paul was about the Thessalonians (see 1:4).

Lastly, having said all this, this is why we need as Christians to be open to seeking the Lord periodically about some area in our lives where we might, even unconsciously, be quenching the Spirit. I am not at all sure that the Thessalonians knew they were rejecting the prophetic work of the Spirit. My best guess is that they did not. Like David we need to say from time to time, "try me and see if there be any wicked way in me" (Psalm 139:24). Along with this, we need to be open to counsel from other godly people who may discern that we are suppressing the Spirit in some area of our lives. None of us is beyond this possibility. In the case of believers who are knowingly quenching the Spirit, I am convinced that they are disappointed or disillusioned with other Christians, the Christian life or God Himself. I am not suggesting this is acceptable in any sense, but it is reality, especially today. For more insight and discussion about this subject, see my first book, Why Christians Sin.

"The Perfect" - I Corinthians 13:8-13

In I Corinthians 13:8 Paul predicts that there is coming a time when the gift of prophecy will "be done away", the gift of tongues will "cease" and the gift of knowledge will also "be done away". All of these spiritual gifts have to do with the imparting of revelation from God. When will these revelatory gifts be finished and no longer necessary? Verse ten makes it clear that "..when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away". So the question is, what is "the perfect"?

There are at least seven distinct interpretations of "the perfect" that I am aware of. Myron Houghton in his BibSac article (July-Sept. '96) lists all seven of them. But basically they all boil down to two views. Either "the perfect" is something that has already come and the revelatory gifts are already done, or "the perfect" is still yet to come and it will come sometime in the future. Obviously, one's interpretation of this phrase has a lot to do with whether we believe these revelatory gifts are around today or not. Verse twelve is the key to understanding the timing of "the perfect". In this verse Paul says,

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known."

The word "mirror" here is very important to a proper understanding of this verse. This particular word is only used one other time in the New Testament, and that is in James 1:23, where it refers to the Word of God being like a "mirror". This leads very naturally to some important conclusions. First of all, since the only other use of this term is in reference to God's Word, there is a very strong probability that it refers to the Word of God here as well. Second, the idea of looking in the mirror is that it allows us to see ourselves, not look at someone else. All of this goes along with the concept that the Word of God is a mirror that allows us to see clearly what "kind of person" we are (see James 1:24).

The other important phrase is "face to face". A lot of people interpret this to be a reference to the second coming of Christ or to death when we see Him "face to face", and this makes a lot of sense until we look again at the immediate context and recognize that the verse is talking about us seeing ourselves "face to face" in a mirror, not seeing someone else. When "the perfect comes" we will no longer see ourselves "in a mirror dimly", but "face to face". In other words, we will see ourselves much more clearly, like we are looking at ourselves "face to face".

This fits perfectly, no pun intended, with the rest of this verse, "...then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known". When the completed canon of Scripture comes, and we have all the special revelation that God intends for us to have, then we can look in the "mirror" of God's Word and understand fully who we are. We can see ourselves as God sees us.

I believe that this interpretation of "the perfect" fits the words and context of I Corinthians 13:8-13 much better than any of the other interpretations, especially those saying that this refers to seeing Christ at some point in the future.

"The perfect" literally refers to that which is complete or final. Assuming that the canon of Scripture has been completed (and I for one believe it has), then we have all the revelation we need to see ourselves as God sees us, and we also have everything we need to live holy and fruitful lives for Jesus Christ! Therefore, the revelatory gifts are no longer needed and have ceased. I realize that this interpretation is not going to satisfy everyone, but no one can say that "the perfect" is still future without seriously interacting with this passage again.

"From Every Tribe..Tongue..People and Nation" - Revelation 5:9

This is one of my favorite verses in the New Testament. Why? Because I believe that it indicates that there will be people in heaven some day from every tribe, language, people group and nation.

One could look at this verse as simply teaching that Christ's death paid for the salvation of the whole world. But this truth is already taught in more than one place in the New Testament (see II John 2:2, II Cor. 5:19). Rather, the language used here seems to indicate more than simply a payment that theoretically could open the door for people of the world in general. It makes the best sense to me to see this as a declaration in heaven at some future date, that people from every walk of life will be present at that time in heaven. It is a celebration of the accomplished fact and the following verse verifies it. There is says that Christ "...has made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign upon the earth." (v. 10). This is such a wonderful truth that leads to some great conclusions.

The first is not original with me. It comes from Randy Alcorn's great book about heaven. There he makes the claim that if there are people from every tribe and people group on earth, that will include groups long extinct like the Vikings and Mayans. What a cool thought! I think he is right. We will see people some day from groups we have only heard about. We will also get to hear their fascinating stories about how God managed to get the gospel to them even in remote or pagan places. I can hardly wait to meet them!

But the conclusion that excites me the most is that because of this prophetic truth, we can be sure that our mission efforts around the world are not in vain. Even better, we can confidently say that the Great Commission will be fulfilled. Even if we in the Church fail to carry out the Great Commission completely, God is going to make sure that in the Tribulation period and through His supernatural efforts, that every elect person from every tribe, tongue, people group and nation will be in heaven someday. What an awesome truth! This is a great incentive to go and make disciples of all the nations, and a wonderful promise of victory in this endeavor!

I look forward to being in heaven someday with my youngest brother, all my loved ones who are already there, all my present family, and people who will represent all the different people of this world. What a wonderfully diverse group it will be to the glory of God and our Lord Jesus Christ!

No Condemnation - Romans 8:1

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

This is one of the most powerful and important verses in the entire New Testament. It is, first of all, a cornerstone of our security in Christ. Because of Christ's death and our trust in it, we know that we will never be condemned by God...ever! We are eternally secure. We will be accepted by God now and forever. But it is not just in the future when we literally stand before Him that we don't have to fear condemnation, it is "now" as Paul says.

A lot of Christians, even those who should know better, speak of God punishing them. Even pastors and theologians talk of such things. But this verse, I believe, rules that out. Going even deeper we can understand why God no longer punishes those who are in Christ.

Punishment is in the first place to satisfy the anger of the one offended. When someone is punished that person is hurt or penalized so that the offended part feels better. Now it is true that God was personally offended by our sin and rebellion. We were at one time His enemies (see Romans 5:10). But when Christ died on the cross for us He satisfied the Father's wrath (Rom. 5:9). This is what I John 2:2 is referring to when it says that "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins." Christ's death satisfied the Father's anger so that we are now at  peace with God (Romans 5:1). He is not angry with us in any way, nor will He ever be if we are in Christ. God does discipline us, and sometimes very severely, but He does it not to punish us, but to correct us because we are His sons and daughters and He loves us too much to let us keep sinning (see Hebrews 12:5-7). But Christ's death is more than just a satisfaction in regard to God's anger. Christ also satisfied God's justice. Judicially-speaking we owed a spiritual debt that we could not pay, but Christ paid our debt so that the justice of God is satisfied and He can justly forgive us (see Colossians 2:14).

The bottom line is that there is nothing we can ever do in Christ to make God condemn us or punish us because Christ's death satisfied God the Father entirely and eternally. This is the foundation of our security in Christ. It is ultimately not about what we do or have done, it is about what Christ has done for us, and what He did on the cross is completely effective now and forever. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

Unless the Father...Draws Him - John 6:44

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

This is the key scripture verse, in my opinion, about the irresistability of God's grace. Jesus is, first of all, giving a qualification to what He just said a few moments ago.

"For this is the will of the Father that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)

Now He is saying that not just anyone who wants to can "come to Me". Only those who are being drawn by the Father. But this is not the aspect of God's irresistible grace that I want to discuss. Nor is it the fact that Jesus here makes it very clear that those who are drawn by the Father to the Son will inevitably believe. As He says immediately after the statement that no one can come to Me unless drawn by the Father, "and I will raise him up on the last day". There is no doubt that whoever is drawn by the Father will believe and will thus have eternal life, and thus be raised by Jesus on the last day. But this is still not what I want to talk about.

I also do not want to dwell on the fact that a short time later Jesus said that "...if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself" (John 12:32).

Now we know that "all" does not mean every single person on earth, as we know there are many people who have lived and died rejecting Christ. Christ Himself said that "...the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few that find it." (Matthew 7:14) It must be that Jesus is saying that if He is lifted up (on the cross), He will draw people from every tongue, tribe, people and nation (see Revelation 5:9)

But what I really want to explain about the irresistibility of God's grace is that when God the Father draws us to Christ He attracts us to Jesus by His beauty and love, He does not drag us or forcibly compel us to believe.

I know that C.S. Lewis talked about being dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. I also know that the Greek word used here in John 6:44 refers to dragging or forcibly moving someone in Acts 21:30 and James 2:6. But as the standard Greek lexicon points out, the use of this word in a figurative sense means to "draw or attract" (see BAG, p. 251).

God, precisely because He is God, knows exactly what we need to hear and understand about Jesus to attract us to Him. God in His wisdom, love and sovereignty arranges the circumstances of our life and employs His Spirit so that in His time and His way we are drawn to Jesus because of His incredible beauty, love and greatness. As Bill Bright used to say, he was not drawn to Jesus because of a fear of hell, but rather the beauty and desirability of Christ. We are drawn to Christ by God's irresistible grace, not by God forcing us to believe something or in someone we really don't want to believe in. This is the way a lot of pastors and theologians explain God's drawing work, i.e., that God forcibly compels us to believe. What the Scripture teaches is that God "quickened" us (see Ephesians 2:5) so that we could believe, and then He draws us by showing us in an undeniable way how much we need Christ and how wonderful He truly is. As D.A. Carson puts it, "When He compels belief, it is not by the savage constraint of a rapist, but by the wonderful wooing of a lover" (The Gospel According to John, p. 293). Couldn't put it better myself. God's grace is irresistible, make no mistake about that. But that grace is attractive, not brutal. We believe not because we have to, but because we want to! Thank you, Heavenly Father!

What Jesus Wrote on the Ground - John 7:53 - 8:11

One of the most familiar stories in the New Testament is about the woman caught in adultery. What a lot of people don't know is that many scholars do not consider this story to be authentic. I do. But I can't explain all the reasons in this post. Suffice it to say that there is some good textual evidence for its inclusion in John. Having shared that conviction, let me get to the issue that everyone is interested in, that is, what did Jesus wrote on the ground? In order to answer this we have to set the scene.

The Feast of Tabernacles had been going on several days and people had been living in makeshift shelters. A lot of adultery had undoubtedly taken place in these close living quarters. In this context, the Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus as He is teaching the Temple. They claim that she had been caught in the very act of adultery and asked Jesus what they should do with her.

The text tells us that they were "testing" Jesus (v 6). They reminded Him that the penalty under the Law was stoning until dead. They also knew that the Romans did not allow this, and that ordinary Jews considered stoning for adultery to be way too excessive a penalty. The Jewish leaders believed that Jesus would not support the law of Moses in this situation, and so they could discredit Him as an impostor. If He was truly the Messiah He would uphold the Mosaic Law.

It is at this point that Jesus stoops down and writes on the ground. Historically, most Christians have taught and believed that He was writing out all the sins of the accusers. This is certainly possible, but I believe that He was simply writing, "You shall not bear a false report" from Exodus 23:1. You see this whole thing was a setup to discredit our Lord. Where was the man? The Law required the woman and man to be brought forward to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10). The Jewish leaders were malicious in their intentions and not fulfilling all the requirements of the Law. They were as guilty of breaking the Law of Moses as the woman they brought before Jesus.

After Jesus says, "he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v 7), He writes on the ground again. This time I believe that He wrote out Exodus 23:7, which says, "keep far from a false charge". Why did He do this? Because when executing the penalty of stoning, the accuser had to throw the first stone and if sometime later it was determined that the charge was in some way false, the accuser was then to be stoned (see Deuteronomy 19:16-19). As result every potential accuser walked away one by one until the adulterous woman was completely alone. Then Jesus told her that He did not "condemn" her (v. 10), but He did tell her to "Go and sin no more" (v. 11).

The point of this story is that Jesus upheld the Law as the Son of God would always do. But He would not support anything that was not fully in accordance with the Law of God. This story is not about grace as many try to make it. It is about Jesus upholding God's Law. He did not condemn the woman because the Law was being perverted. But He also warned her to stop sinning because He is concerned about righteousness. Only Jesus could have handled this difficult situation so well!  Truly He is the Son of God!

Headcoverings - I Corinthians 11:5

"Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head..."

There is a lot of buzz about headcoverings around me these days. So I thought I better discuss them. It doesn't fit with my sermon plans, but it is a topic worthy of addressing. So here I go.

Are headcoverings biblical? Yes. It is clear from I Corinthians chapter 11 that Christian women should wear headcoverings. But at what times or occasions? Some say that women should wear them at all times as a sign of submission to men. Some say that women should wear them in the worship services of the church. But Paul only specifies that women must wear headcoverings when "praying or prophesying". Why not when reading Scripture or singing psalms of praise? Why not when speaking in tongues or interpreting tongues?

It would have been extremely easy for Paul to simply say, "Women should wear headcoverings at all times" or "Women should wear headcoverings whenever they worship". But he didn't. He doesn't say either of these things in this passage. What he says is that men should not have their heads covered when praying or prophesying (v 7) and that women should have their heads covered when doing these things. Why just these two worship practices when there are other worship practices not mentioned and other spiritual gifts not referenced? There must be something very special about "praying and prophesying". Let's start with prophesy.

Paul emphasizes prophesy as one of the most important gifts (see I Corinthians 14:1-5). Prophesy is the spiritual gift of being used of God to speak His very words, that is, the communication of God's revelation to us (see 14:30). Obviously, this is very, very important. What could be more important than speaking the very words of God to the congregation?

Now I realize that some people, myself included, do not believe that the Holy Spirit is giving the gift of prophesy to His people today because the canon of Scripture is complete. I also recognize that some scholars do not view New Testament prophesy as the very words of God. But it makes the most sense to say that because prophesy was giving direct revelation from God to the congregation, if a woman is going to do it, she is required to put on a headcovering as a sign of submission to the Lord, her husband, and the male leadership.

This brings us to the matter of "praying". In the context, coupled with the act of "prophesying", it makes the most sense to me to see this as another very solemn act that is so significant that it requires a headcovering for women. This is not just a woman praying silently during the worship service. This, I believe, is referring to a woman leading the congregation in prayer. She is speaking to God for His people. Whether prophesying or praying, when a woman is leading the congregation by praying to God or speaking for God she has to have her head covered for these solemn acts.

Now you may not agree with my specific interpretation or explanations about prophecy and prayer, and that's all right. But this is why we don't require women to wear headcoverings at our church simply for worship. If as a father or husband your conviction is that you wife or daughter should wear one at all times or for worship...fine. But this passage cannot be used to dogmatically teach anything beyond the specifically stated requirement of head coverings for women who pray or prophesy. This is the only thing one can be certain about. If one takes the headcovering requirement further it lacks a clear scriptural basis.

Being Ready for the Evil Day - Ephesians 6:13

"Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm." Ephesians 6:13

What exactly is the "evil day"? Is it a particular day during the tribulation? Is it a one time occurrence? What is it referring to? Paul is exhorting the Ephesian believers, and us, to put on the full armor of God so that we can resist Satan's attacks and "schemes". I believe, and I get this from Tony Evans by the way, that the "evil day" is speaking of times when Satan is particularly gunning for us. Spiritual attacks come regularly for me, probably for you as well. But every now and then, Satan throws everything he's got at us. He tries to discourage, tempt, deceive and accuse us all at once. These are the "evil" days. We may or may not be able to fight off Satan when it is a normal spiritual attack. But on the "evil day", if we are not wearing the full armor of God we are going to be a spiritual casualty. That is why Paul says "having done everything, to stand firm."

I just talked with a good friend from our church. He encountered the "evil day" this past weekend. He was attacked in just about every way possible. But he was ready, and knew how to respond, and took a bad situation and with God's help turned it into a spiritual victory. You can too. We don't have to be spiritual supermen (or women), but we have to understand Satan's schemes. We have to know what the armor of God really is, and how to put it on. I wrote an entire book just about the armor of God. Check it out some time. Don't let Satan ruin your life and your witness! Don't let him take away your peace, joy and contentment! Don't let him pull apart your family and relationships! Be ready for the "evil day"!

"...be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might." Ephesians 6:10

Does Praying For the Sick Really Work? James 5:14-15

"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." James 5:14-15

When the issue of prayer and healing comes up, one of the first Scriptures usually mentioned is James 5:14-15. This is one of the very few passages in the New Testament epistles that addresses the issue of healing, and in this passage it is linked not to spiritual gifts or "healers", but the elders of a local church. Believers are exhorted if "sick" to call for the leaders of their church to pray for them. This passage seems very clear and straight-forward about the results if the prayer is "offered in faith". The text explicitly says that this kind of prayer "will restore the one who is sick". There is no ambiguity in this passage at all. Healing will happen. But this leads to a real dilemma. A lot of prayers have been prayed for sick people with a lot more faith than a mustard seed (see Matthew 17:20), but unfortunately most of the people prayed for have not been healed. This should not be disputed as even the Vineyard pastor, John Wimber, admitted in writing that his church only saw about 2% of the people prayed for healed. So what's the problem?

If one studies the word "sick" in verse fourteen, it becomes clear that this word means "weakness" and it can be physical (see Matthew 10:8) or spiritual (see Romans 14:1). The work "sick" in verse fifteen is a different word from the one in verse fourteen, and it refers to physical or spiritual fatigue (see Hebrews 12:3). The point is that one cannot say with certainty that the healing spoken of here is physical. It could be spiritual healing. I lean towards the idea that it is both. I believe that James is addressing the issue of people who are physically ill because of spiritual issues, and in particular, unconfessed sin. This fits great with the following verse, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (vs. 16). It also fits well with the last part of verse fifteen which says that the person's sins will be forgiven.

So what I am saying is that when someone has sinned and as a result of that sin there are physical consequences (see I Corinthians 11:30, for example), that person needs to call for the elders, be willing to confess any known sin, and trust the Lord to heal them physically and spiritually.

This explains why this procedure doesn't work more often than it does. First, there may not be in this age of grace that many people suffering physically because of unconfessed sin, or perhaps, the sins that are causing the illness are not being confessed. There may be a lack of faith occasionally, but as pointed out earlier, only a mustard seed worth is required for healing to take place.

Now this raises the question of whether or not it is right and appropriate to pray for those who are sick simply because God has allowed it. My answer, even in light of this passage correctly interpreted, is yes!

Prayer is always appropriate. We may not have a promise that God will heal in these cases, but it is always right o ask for it. Our God is a merciful and gracious God who responds to the prayers of His people. That is why at our church we encourage people to have the elders pray for them even if it is not a case of sin-induced illness. One never knows for sure what God will do, or when. The best thing is always to pray. May God help us to do so!

Why Atheism Is Foolish (Part Two) Psalm 14:1-3

"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 14:1-3

In my last post I explained why atheism is foolish. It is a negative belief system that has killed far more people in history than all religious zealots combined. It is also a belief system that cannot be proven any more than a religious one. An atheist cannot say with certainty, "There is no God". That is a statement of faith. He cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than a Christian can prove that He does. The best that an atheist can accurately say is "I don't think or believe there is a God", and that is agnosticism.

In this post I want to further explain why atheism is foolish, and it has to do with the issue of being "good".

Atheists today are working very hard to prove that they are "good" people. Even though history shouts against this, and logically, atheism leads to moral relativism and all kinds of bad behavior, atheists nevertheless claim that they are "good" people.

Now the first problem with this argument is that God says "there is no one who does good, not even one." But, of course, to accept this as true one has to accept that there is a God, and that the Bible is His inerrant Word. So, even though I believe that this is true simply because the Creator God has said it, let's look at this issue rationally, logically and practically.

Do people who are atheists do "good"? I would say 'yes' from a human perspective. I have no doubt that atheists at times do very good things by human standards. Some are wonderful parents. Some are very nice neighbors. Some are honest business people, just to give a few examples. However, why are they "good"? I would say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with being an atheist. Atheism as a system does not logically lead to goodness. Rather, some atheists do good because they were raised according to Judeo-Christian ethics and they continue to live by them even though those ethics are contrary to the tenets of atheism. Some atheists do good out of self-interest. They treat others well because they want to be treated well. Other atheists do good because of the legal and practical consequences of not doing good. They are afraid of getting caught. Still other atheists are proud. They do good to prove that they are just as good, if not better than all the religious folks. Whether it is social conditioning, self-interest, fear or pride, all the goodness done by atheists, and everyone else for that matter, is ultimately not because people are intrinsically good, but because of other much less noble reasons that are not to our credit. That is why God has said, "there is no one who does good." From His perspective, people are not intrinsically good. We are all selfish, sinful and proud! Not just atheists, all of us! That is why Christ had to come and die; to pay for what we have all done wrong in the eyes of a holy God. Christians are not any better or any more deserving of God's love and forgiveness than atheists. It's all grace. The difference is that Christians realize we are not "good" and so we have put our trust in the only person who was ever truly, completely good...the Lord Jesus Christ!