I have been thinking
lately on what divides the body of Christ locally and universally. I came to
the conclusion that it was/is doctrine. We can get past a lot of things with
one another, but doctrines account for most of the large scale divisions as far
as I can tell. Doctrine of course is essential so there is no doing away with
it, or else you end up with relativism and liberalism. So upon further review I
think I’ll say that it is incorrect doctrine that divides us. Doctrines,
whether correct or incorrect, become ingrained in us and at some point they
become our traditions. Traditions aren’t bad either, it’s just incorrect ones
that are the culprit.
The conundrum is that
those who study the most devoutly are the ones who have the strongest doctrinal
and tradition stances while those who study the least end up adopting one of
these devout people’s doctrines/traditions, whether for good or ill, and none of
us will budge because of course we are all correct.
It seems to be quite the
unfixable problem.
As a man who believes in
the sovereignty of God I often wonder why God has caused me to live in such a
divided and confusing time as ours. Regardless of His reasons I know one thing
for sure: I would rather live in such a time as ours in Christ and apart of His
Body than to live in the most devout age in history outside of it!
God has placed us in
such a time as ours my dear brothers and sisters and it will be to His glory if
the Holy Spirit uses us to unite His Body. Let’s begin in WilkesCounty.
If this has touched a
cord in you I encourage you to read and meditate on 2 Corinthians 3-6.
In the Bible study I am priviledged to attend we usually end up talking about things we disagree on. One of those things is Divine Election, i.e. predestination. One of the guys has made the charge a few times that if predestination is true then salvation is just arbitrary. God is arbitrarily picking people to save and to leave others to their own devices.
Today while I was jogging this charge came to my mind and I had to sit down and think about it for a few minutes or it was just going to eat at me constantly. So I decided to do so and answer the question "Can God's choice in election be arbitrary?" Here's what I came up with, you can let me know what you think or ask questions if you like.
So we have enough that can meet to go ahead and do so. We'll
meet at the CCM office @ 6:00.
As far as a topic I am still working on the Will of Man
topic, but we might as well just go through the Scriptures together given the
rate at which I'm getting to them. I do actually have a list, but I haven't
vetted them all to see the level of relevance for all of them. So, we can do
that or you can wait for a proper presentation and do another subject.
It's Isom/Church choice. Looking forward to it.
BTW I was thinking about Divine election/predestination
today and Daniel's charge that if true it is arbitrary was just eating at me so
I had to sit down and think about it and here's the response I came up with.
Let me know what you think.
First two questions must be answered: 1) What is divine
election? 2) What does arbitrary mean?
1. Divine election is the doctrine that God chooses to save
some sinners based on His own will.
2. Arbitrary means existing or coming
about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act
of will.
*So, can the choice of an all wise, all
powerful, and eternal Being be random? Well since random means to be without
definite aim, direction, rule, or method then the answer is no.
*Can the choice of an all wise, all
powerful, and eternal Being be by chance? Well since chance means that
something happens without discernable intention or observable cause the answer
is likewise no. God tells us why He elects throughout the Bible.
*Can the choice of an all wise, all powerful, and eternal
Being be capricious? Well since capricious means to be governed or
characterized by impulsiveness or unpredictability we here again find the
answer to be no.
* Can the choice of an all wise, all powerful, and eternal
Being be unreasonable? Well since reason flows from the character of God it
would seem a contradiction for Him to be unreasonable.
Conclusion: Since the choice of an all wise, all powerful,
and eternal Being cannot fit any part of the definition of what arbitrary means
then any choice He makes by definition cannot be arbitrary. This not only
applies to His choice in election, but also to His choice in creation, His
choice of the moral law, His choice to create men with 2 legs instead of four,
His choice to make water be composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom,
et cetera, ad nauseum! Any choice that God makes, although it may appear or
seem arbitrary to us, i.e. from our perspective, cannot actually be arbitrary.
For as long as I can remember Jamey Bare has been my best friend. Jamey and I are very different and I don't get to spend as much time with him as I would like now that we both have young families and differing interests. Although things have changed in our lives thinking of Jamey as a brother is something that won't.
I remember one day Jamey and I were lifting weights and I was complaining about not wanting to be there. He was always having to drag me to the weight room because I was lazy, but I had the keys so he needed me! While I was complaining that day Jamey just looked at me and said, "If it was easy everybody would be doing it." and then he went back to lifting as if what he had just said was no big deal.
That "no big deal" has stuck with me now for some 20 years and I use it often. There are times when I am frustrated while thinking about things or trying to do something that I find myself saying, "If it was easy, everyone would do it." What was no big deal to Jamey has helped motivate and push me to do hard things now for 20+ years.
I thought I would start trying to post some of these challenges on my blog and maybe even have some fun with it every now and again. So now that you know the background to this I give to you
"If it was easy everyone would do it." #1
Sometimes when I'm studying a theological issue I think to myself, "No wonder so many people just take the preacher's word for it." and then I think to myself....
I finally have a few minutes to wrap this up. I have had someone say that they needed me to finish this so that they could use the tactics I've been presenting so I want to apologize for it taking a few days.
The last tool that I want to give you is very simple and it's another question. Actually it's two questions, but you generally will want to use them in tandem so I'll combine them. When you find yourself outmatched, with nowhere to run, and in a difficult situation the most powerful thing that you can do is ask the person a question. Even if you're not outmatched and you just want to strike up a conversation the most powerful thing you can do is ask the person a question.
Yes, it's that simple. Even if you cannot identify the Big Idea behind the person's argument you are still fine as long as you can ask a question. However, you probably will never get around to this is you don't have that "Reality" tool in it's proper location.
The two questions that you will want to ask are: #1. What do you mean by that? #2. How did you come to that conclusion.
You may not always ask those questions in the same way but you will be asking a variation of those questions and the point of asking them is threefold:
1. It shows the other person that you are interested in what they have to say.
2. It takes the pressure off of you and forces the person making the assertions to explain themselves.
3. It gives you a chance to think as well as the opportunity to ask more questions about what the person is getting ready to explain to you which again starts this threefold cycle.
So, in the case of the lady and the POTUS here is how it could practically work out.
When the POTUS asks the lady about her PhD she could have said something like, "Mr. President, I'm curious about why you're asking me about my PhD. Why are you asking me that?" Well in this case the POTUS answers that very question (see 0:54-1:29). He very quickly transitions into the list of Jewish Law, but if the lady would have had time she could have asked some more questions to expose the Big Idea such as: "Mr. President, if I had advanced degrees in all of those areas would that give me the right to call homosexuality an abomination in your eye? Why or why not? Don't you think there are people with advanced degrees who share my opinion, Mr. President?" or "Mr. President, do you have advanced degrees in those areas? If not does that make your opinion on the matter as valuable as you seem to be suggesting mine is?" or "Mr. President, why does a person have to have advanced degrees in subjects to know the truth? Are you saying that only people with advanced degrees can know what is good/evil, right/wrong, correct/incorrect?" You can come up with more if you think about it. These are all ways of asking those two questions and forcing the person to explain what they mean by what they are saying.
In the segment from 1:30-2:45 you could ask questions such as: "Mr President, do you think that the entire Jewish Law is bad? If so then is it ok to murder? If not, then how do you decide which ones still apply and which ones don't?" A question like this immediately disarms the rapid fire and snowball effect of all of the questions he is asking the lady and forces him to explain what he thinks about the Jewish law and if you were to ask some follow up questions he would have to tell you how he comes to those conclusions at which point you will..........wait for it.........ASK MORE QUESTIONS!!!
Now the POTUS may have well thought out answers for all of those questions, which would be wonderful because you are not trying to take advantage of the other person by asking these questions. We are actually trying to learn something. If they have well thought out answers then you can learn something and continue to ask more questions until you have a grasp on the situation and find yourself in a place where you are comfortable taking a more active role in the conversation, as opposed to the passive one you take on in asking questions.
However, you will probably find that if you ask these questions the vast majority of people you are talking to will contradict themselves or talk themselves into a corner or say, "I'm not sure, I've never really thought about it that way before." within a couple of minutes. At least this has been my experience so far. The reason for this is because most people (on both sides I might add) do not really think about what they are learning or saying, they only parrott what they have heard someone else say that seemed persuasive to them at the time it was said, but has never taken the time to think critically about.
We all have these areas in our lives (Christian and non-Christian) and if you are wise you will thank each and every person who points those areas out to you. After all, we should NOT be trying to guard our turf or prove OUR point, but we should be pursuing what is TRUE. If what you believe is true then no question or challenge is off limits.
Now, these 3 posts are a summation of a part of what I have learned from a man named Greg Koukl. The tactic that I have spent 3 blogposts sharing with you is called the "Columbo Tactic". If you would like to listen to the expert on the subject it explain it more thorougly and understandably than I just have feel free to watch these videos or buy his book.
This first video is the short 4 minute version for those who don't have the time.
This second video is 60 minutes for those who want a more in depth discussion. I have also provided a link to his book below this 2nd video.
In part 2 of this post my goal is to give you some tools to put in your toolshed so that when you find yourself near or immediately involved in a conversation that you have interest in and/or deeply care about you will be able to get involved instead of standing on the sideline or in the middle of the road frozen like a deer in headlights, if you are the center of attention in the conversation.
Remember that we are going to put ourselves in the shoes of the lady on the West Wing video. We are going to assume that we have some convictions about the subject at hand, in this case homosexuality, and that we have just been challenged in a way that we have no idea what to do. We are also going to assume that we have the ability to ask questions and that we care about what the other person has to say.
So, the first tool that I want to give you to put in your toolshed is "Reality". That's right, every toolbox needs a good measure of reality and they need to know exactly where it is in your toolshed. It is usually going to be hanging on the hook labeled Humility which is hung on the board known as shut your mouth and open your ears. What I mean by "Reality" is that you must have an accurate picture of what you know and don't know in your toolshed. The lady in this video thought she knew some things about the Bible and about homosexuality, but as soon as she was challenged by someone smarter than herself she quickly found out that she didn't have as firm a grasp on it as she thought. Now if you're like I use to be, and can still be sometimes, then your "Reality" tool isn't hung on the "Humility" hook and your first reaction to what happened to this lady isn't going to be thoughtful. This is a consequence of your Reality tool being hung on the Pride hook which isn't nailed in your toolshed but instead is nailed in THIS place where all ideas are thought up as quickly as possible and almost always stink!
So the first thing I want to tell you is to know yourself. If you thought you knew something, but now you know that you did so only on a surface level then don't try to pretend and be that guy from the last post. Take out your reality tool and say to yourself, "Ok, this guy just walked all over top of what I believe. He brought up some valid questions that I haven't thought of before and have no clue how to answer. If I'm going to have a conversation with this person about this subject that I care about then I am going to have to think of something other than my standard responses because he just blew them all up."
The second thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed isn't a tool, but instead is a sign. This sign should be hanging above the doors on your toolshed and it reads, "WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA?" When you are engaging someone in a conversation and they are saying things like the POTUS in this video they are expressing ideas. If you can learn to identify the ideas then you will be able to take all of the pressure off of yourself and place it where it belongs, and that is on the person expressing the ideas.
For instance even though the POTUS said a lot of things in this short video you can break down everything he said into a handful of very managable ideas and here they are:
#1. If you watch the video from 0:54 through 1:29 you will find the POTUS asking the lady a series of questions about her PhD and casts a shadow on her expertise on the subject she talks about on her show, i.e. homosexuality in this case. So what's the big idea here? The big idea that the POTUS is pushing is that unless you have advanced degrees in the subject you are expressing an opinion on then your opinon is worthless.
The key to this idea is seeing that it does not deal with the substance, or lack thereof, of what the woman was saying and the arguments she was presenting on her talk show. Her ideas may be terrible, but it is not attacking the validity of her ideas and arguments, but instead saying that she has no buisness expressing her ideas or arguments because she's not an "expert" in the areas the POTUS thinks you need to be an "expert" in in order to give thoughts. It's much like saying that a man cannot have a say or even an opinion on abortion because he's a man and it's the woman who has to have the baby. The men aren't the experts in having babies, women are! This of course is true, but the BIG IDEA isn't having babies, but whether or not ending the life of an innocent human being is justified and you don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on that subject.
#2. 1:30-2:45 shows the POTUS rattling off parts of the Old Testament Law that are not followed by the lady or anyone else that she communicates with on her talkshow. So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that if you are not going to follow ALL of the OT Law then you are not obligated to consider homosexuality an abomination or follow ANY of the OT Law. The key to understanding this idea is that only parts of the OT Law were quoted. What about "you shall not lie with an animal...neither shall a woman give herself to an animal to lie with it, it is a perversion"(Lev. 18:23) or what about "you shall not steal"..."you shall not oppress or rob your neighbor"..."you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev. 19:11-18) or what about "do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute"..."you shall treat a stranger who sojourns with you as a native, you shall love him as yourself"..."you shall have just balances, just weights..." (Lev. 19:29-36). I could go on, and on, and on, with Laws like "no murder", "no adultery", "honor your parents", et cetera. Do you think the POTUS would want to ignore these laws as well or think that these laws were unjust and ridiculous the same way he did the others?
#3. 2:46-3:01 shows the POTUS rubbing in his victory and saying that you shouldn't sit when the President stands. So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that you should show respect regardless of whether you agree or disagree with an individuals ideas and although the POTUS didn't show respect to the lady in making that point I give a hearty "Amen" to the idea that the lady should have been respectful to the POTUS instead of sitting to make a point.
So now you have a tool, "Reality", and a sign on your toolshed. If you can learn to use the Reality tool and find the BIG IDEAs then you almost have it licked. There's one more thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed. This last thing is the most important of the 3, because it will allow you to be confident in your Reality tool and be able to see and appropriately use the BIG IDEA sign on your toolshed.
Unfortunately it's 1am and I've got to get up in a few hours so you're going to have to wait until part 3 to find it out. You're going to want to find it out though because when you use this 3rd tool you will find that you will have the ability to be in control of any conversation at anytime that you want to be in control. You will find that there is no longer any need to be nervous about getting into a conversation. You will find that you will have confidence and the ability to have a good Reality tool. You will find that you will more easily identify BIG IDEAs. Lastly, you will find that you are able to give answers when you want to give answers and listen when you want to listen in any conversation. It is by far the most powerful of the three things that I will be sharing with you so I look forward to doing so in the near future.
Sometimes you will find yourself in situations where you are speechless. You express your ideas, thoughts, or convictions but the person you are talking to challenges you in a way that just runs all over top of those ideas, thoughts, or convictions. You were so confident about those things just 5 minutes earlier, but now you're not sure. They may have even talked about your ideas from an angle you never thought of before. Your mind is spinning and you just freeze because you have no idea what to say. You're still processing what the other person just said and are trying to figure out whether you even believe what you were arguing for 5 minutes ago.
THAT is a bad feeling. Trust me, that is a very bad feeling and I have experienced that feeling a few times in my life. I imagine the lady in this video had the same feeling.
Now I know this is a story from a fictional show, but if watch CNN or MSNBC when the topic is homosexuality I can almost guarentee you that you will witness this story playing out in real life because I've seen it many times. It's good to watch it though because you can learn from seeing the train wreck that occurs.
I posted this video on Facebook the other day and after being inundated with pleas to answer the challenges offered by President Bartlet I decided to blog about it. (By inundated I mean Heather Pack asked me to. :)
First you have to know how much you know about the topic. If you are ignorant the worst thing you can do is to try and fake a response by making it up or parroting ideas that have sounded good to you, but that you have never thought critically about. Doing that is like being this guy when playing basketball.
Everyone knows he's no good as soon as he walks in the door and if they think he may be sandbagging it they know that he's not good by the time he takes two dribbles. If it's not basketball then just think about whatever it is that you are good at. When someone is pretending to be good at it or trying to pretend to know about it then you will know almost immediately that this person doesn't have a clue.
Also, you need to understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing to be ignorant. We are all ignorant, just in different subjects. It may just be that the issue has never been on your radar in a way that has challenged you as it is now and that's ok. What isn't ok is to be that guy! Don't pretend like you know it all because so and so told you such and such back in the day. When you do that you go from being ignorant to dishonest and dumb, which is much worse. Trust me on this because I've taken this route before as well.
Not only this but you cast a shadow on your believability when you talk about other subjects that you may be more knowledgable about and may even care more about. If that isn't enough to get you to not take this approach then let me throw one more reason on the pile. If you take this approach you will cast the shadow of you bad arguments and reasoning abilities on people who are not ignorant of the subject and may have the best ideas and answers for the challenges. If you don't think that happens then watch THIS VIDEO and understand that if you do this on video then the people who will be called in to clean up your mess will probably not be advocates for your position.
If you are not ignorant on the given topic then feel free to exchange ideas, but for the sake of this post I am going to imagine that you find yourself in the same shoes as the lady in the video. You have convictions and you've even publically expressed them, but you aren't skilled at defending them or at being persuasive in presenting them in a challenging environment.
So, with that being said, and since this post is getting a little long winded, I am going to leave you to watch the videos and think about your own level of confidence, or lack thereof, if you were to find yourself in a similar situation.
In part two of this I will try to give you a couple of tools that I have acquired, from experience and men much smarter than myself, that will allow you to move through such conversations confidently, respectfully, and winsomely regardless of your level of expertise with the topic at hand. There are only two requirements for being able to use these techniques: 1) You know how to ask questions. 2) You are willing to listen and care about what the other person has to say.
If you have those two skills then you are set. Looking forward to getting into the details with you next time.
I have a question that I have had running through my mind today and so I thought I'd ask to see if I could get a good answer.
Is unbelief a sin? In other words is refusing to believe the Gospel and accept salvation through Jesus Christ a sin?
Seems like the only answer to the question is "yes" and I would agree. However I think this creates a problem for most believers that I know.
Most believers that I know would say that Jesus died for every sin that has ever been, is being, or will be committed. If that is so then it seems to me that the only logical outcome is for everyone to go to Heaven, i.e. universalism, because Jesus has paid the price for every sin that everyone ever committed.
I have challenged a few people with that line of reasoning before and every single one responds with the same answer, "Yes, Jesus died for their sins, but they refused to believe and accept His offer of salvation." I have never asked the following question because I never thought of it until now.
Is refusing to believe and accept Jesus' offer of salvation a sin? If the answer is yes then Jesus died for that sin and God has no grounds for punishing you for it since He already punished Jesus for it.
You might respond, "Yes, there is punishment for it because Jesus' payment for it was never accepted." To which I will respond, "Was that a sin for a person to never accept that payment?" If the answer is yes then Jesus paid the price for anyone's refusal to accept the payment of their sin. And now we start over.
If Jesus died for all sin at all times and unbelief and refusing to accept salvation through Christ is a sin I do not see how universalism is not true.
