Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.
Thanks Louis for this inspirational thought concerning Mary. It’s interesting that the angel, Gabriel, personally brought a message from God to Mary. I guess that is the work of some angels, being messengers for God. It was also the angel, Gabriel, who brought the text of the Koran to Muhammad in 609 A.D., over a 23 year period. It is based on this that Muslims, like Christians, believe that the Koran (their Scriptures) is the fully inspired word of God and therefor inerrant.
Thanks John for your article (or articles) in which you are critical of our American culture and the way it seems that many American churches (including Reformed and Presbyterian) are following such culture. Could it be that our culture is perhaps more on track than the church on many issues, and therefore the church ends up following culture? If I remember correctly it was the southern USA (the Bible belt) that advocated for slavery and the liberal north that fought against it. It was also Christians who were in the forefront of opposing mixed racial marriages. It was also Christians (the church) who opposed women leadership, whether in the church, family, or society. And on these issues, as well as others (such as creation vss. evolution), the church gave (or gives) Scriptural support for such positions. I think society, although listening to the church for some time, has lost all confidence in the church to give moral or meaningful direction. Eventually the church (and the CRCNA) will probably follow culture (and rightfully so) on the issue of homosexuality.
Thanks John for your article (or articles) in which you are critical of our American culture and the way it seems that many American churches (including Reformed and Presbyterian) are following such culture. Could it be that our culture is perhaps more on track than the church on many issues, and therefore the church ends up following culture? If I remember correctly it was the southern USA (the Bible belt) that advocated for slavery and the liberal north that fought against it. It was also Christians who were in the forefront of opposing mixed racial marriages. It was also Christians (the church) who opposed women leadership, whether in the church, family, or society. And on these issues, as well as others (such as creation vss. evolution), the church gave (or gives) Scriptural support for such positions. I think society, although listening to the church for some time, has lost all confidence in the church to give moral or meaningful direction. Eventually the church (and the CRCNA) will probably follow culture (and rightfully so) on the issue of homosexuality.
Thanks Staci for a refreshing article. I like your use of Justin Bieber to get to the heart of what many in our society are thinking about God and Christianity. I don’t want to put words in Justin’s mouth or interpret him wrongly, but you are asking what we (your readers) think or what is our opinion in regard to his comments.
I think that secular society (including Bieber), as well as other religious societies, are offended by Christianity because Christians have and have had throughout history the attitude of, “we are right and you are wrong.” Christianity has always proclaimed there is no other name under heaven, or no other way in the world by which to please God than by Jesus. Whereas, we think we are very gracious and loving by presenting the good news of Jesus, the world thinks that Christians are summarily dismissing what they believe. We go to foreign mission fields and tell Muslims, Hindus, or Jews that their religion will not get them to heaven, and we tell Americans and Canadians that the good they do doesn’t count with God. But of course that is a Christian view and not one shared by the world. Secular societies and other religions believe that the good a person does counts with God. So, the Christian attitude and message of, we are right and you are wrong, makes Christianity very offensive to most the world.
And to Bieber and to much of society, they think the church is disposable because the church is full of hypocrites who think they are right and everyone else is wrong about a loving God who sends everyone to hell except those who believe like us (Christians).
Maybe Jesus has already responded to Bieber in stories like the one of the sheep and goats on judgment day. The sheep who make it to heaven are those who have done good (as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done unto me) and the goats who go to hell are those who have not done good (as you have not done it...). Maybe Jesus is saying, take stock of your life and do good. Or maybe Jesus might have already responded to Bieber by retelling the story of the good Samaritan (who represents the unbeliever) who does what is loving for the injured man, unlike those others who clung to their faith. Again do good, regardless of what you believe. Or he might retell the story of the house built on the rock, which is a house of good deeds. I have a feeling that people in our society might appreciate Jesus’ example and much of his teaching without appreciating the hypocrisy of most Christians (my way or no way).
Of course, we, as Christians, have a different perception of society’s take on us. But the world doesn’t see it, do they? Thanks Staci.
Thanks Staci and Tim. I appreciate your openness and willingness to share. No doubt, in my mind Staci, you raise some important questions and concerns in regard to the gospel. And you put those concerns into a format that is easy to understand. Both you and Tim, probably hit onto something, by suggesting the building of relationships and letting love lead the way for Christian witness. But that still doesn’t remove the offense of the gospel, Christ is the only hope. We are still saying to the world - whatever you may have thought or whatever other religions teach, ours is the only way to find acceptance with God. Whether building a relationship or showing love, our message is still the same, no other name than Christ. Our way is the only way. It’s not Christians who are always offensive, but the message, especially when it rubs up against other religions or other opinions. I wonder, I know some wonderful people who are not Christian. Christians aren’t the only caring and nice people. Does their niceness, love, or the building of a relationship make their message of God’s love (a different message from ours), change the way Christians think? Christians say, don’t be deceived, only our message is the true message. Don’t be fooled by their kindness. By the same token, do you really think our kindness is really going to convince any thoughtful person? Bottom line, Christianity is still offensive to the world. That’s the nature of the gospel. And the church is still full of closed minded people, even if they’re nice. I doubt that Christianity will ever win any popularity contests, especially in more advanced cultures.
Thanks Doug for your article on being offended by God. I don’t know what you were thinking when you wrote this article but I think it reflects some pretty narrow thinking. Tell me Doug, are you at all offended by or object to the Muslim concept of God? Of course they don’t believe in a Triune God. How about the Mormon religion in which the angel, Moroni, gave the twelve golden plates from God to Joseph Smith to be translated into English? Do you object to such a revelation of God? How about the Hindu religion and their belief in a multitude of Gods which are manifestations of the one big God? Do you object to that or are you offended at all by their religion? Those religions and hundreds of other religions could ask you the same question you ask of others. Those other religions, like Christianity, are supported by their own infallible Scriptures which they claim have been inspired or given by God. What makes you think that our Bible is any more God’s word than their Scriptures? And yet I imagine you take offense at those religions and doubt their veracity. So why would anyone other than a Christian believe what is taught by Christians or within the Christian religion? Christianity is just one of many, many religions in the world. Why would you think that the world would possibly believe the Christian concept of God or Christianity any more than any other religion?
But bringing this closer to home, there is very little agreement among Christians as to Christian teaching. There are many hundreds of Christian denominations. Christians may agree on some very basic fundamentals, but otherwise there is very little agreement. Just ask a Catholic, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, and a Reformed person what they believe about Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or what will happen at the end of time. Already there is a multitude of things to be offended by or to object to. Our own Canons of Dort were written in opposition to Arminian beliefs. Reformed Christians were greatly offended by Arminius and his followers. Our own Reformed confessions call the Baptists and Catholics offensive names. We have a long history of objecting to the beliefs of other Christians. Are you saying they were wrong in their objections or at taking offense? So whose Christianity or whose Bible is a person supposed to agree with wholeheartedly, Doug?
Thanks Salaam for your articles articulating the basic Muslim perspective. I am by no means an expert in Islamic thinking. So such an article helps with getting into the mind set of those who have a Muslim religious bias. I realize that the Islamic religion upholds a theocratic form of national government, unlike the U.S., Canada, or other democracies. The theocratic form of Islam seems, to me, to come close to what we read of in the Old Testament when God was perceived as Israel’s only ruler. There was not a separation of church and state by which the state was governed by separate laws from that of religious law. That helps me to understand how a Muslim mind set can consider that all others (other than Muslims) are infidels and worthy of death.
When Israel (in the Old Testament) was told to go into the promised land and take possession of this land by killing all the inhabitants of this land, this killing was to include men, women, and children. It didn’t matter if some of these inhabitants were good or not. In God’s mind they were all infidels and deserved to die. The Israelites were not given any other option than to destroy the people living in this promised land. It didn’t matter that this land had previously (previous to God’s promise) and legitimately belonged to other people. The Israelites were not to question God but to simply obey. God’s honor was at stake and disobedience as an affront on his honor. This is the God whom we, as Christians, worship. Just as killing non Muslims makes no sense to me, neither does our Old Testament concept of a just Jahweh God.
I think also contributing to this Old Testament and Muslim perspective is the idea that God’s greatest concern was for his own chosen people. God has a right to chose a chosen race (people) out from the sea of humanity to demonstrate his love particularly on them. Those outside of the chosen race were deemed as of little worth unless these outsiders were to acquiesce to the chosen nation’s God or deity. We see this today, and seems to be made clear in your article, Salaam. And it also seems to be clear from our own historic Christian roots, as well. If we can pretend to understand the God of the Old Testament, then we should have some understanding of the ISIS mentality of today. God help us.
P.S: Just as there are many Muslim groups disassociating from a radical Islamic perspective, so there are many Christians who try to redefine Christianity into a more moderate and loving religion, as well. Just as many Muslims can find sympathetic scripture passages to soften the core of Islamic belief, that same is true of Christianity. You can make Scripture say whatever you may want, whatever the religion.
Thanks Nathaniel, for your response to my comment. I can see, from your comment, that you want to hang on to the idea that the God of the Bible is a loving and gracious God. But I think you are looking at the Bible’s teaching only at a surface level. You are not considering what the Bible teaches about God below the surface at the deeper level. As I see it, you are looking at the veneer on the surface and not the substance. What I have appreciated, in the past, about the Reformed theological understanding of the Bible is that it goes deeper in trying to understand the Bible’s teaching.
You suggest that God was very patient and gracious with the people in the land of Canaan, in fact for 430 years. I’m not sure where you get this time frame from. Are you trying to calculate from the time of Adam up to the time when God told the Israelites to go in to the land and slaughter the people of Canaan? You portray God as gracious, patient, longsuffering and tolerant for this length of time. I’m not sure where you draw this from. In fact it sounds more like your own summation of God’s character toward the Canaanites and Hittites, rather than the Bible’s.
If I read my Bible correctly, it is only the chosen of God who are loved by God. The chosen people of God, whether in the Old Testament or New, are the ones who are the objects of God’s electing love and of the special ministry of the Holy Spirit by which he draws them to himself. But what about the others, the ones not chosen for salvation? They may hear a general gospel invitation but are not enabled to respond to God’s invitation apart from the Holy Spirit’s empowering and enabling. They are left to their own efforts to win salvation, which we know results in failure.
Those not chosen, the non-elect, are not only left to their own efforts to win God’s favor but are hindered or obstructed by God from having any success in pleasing him, according to the Bible. You see it is not only the elect who are predestined to salvation, but it is also the non-elect who are predestined to damnation. It’s a double predestination. For instance, Romans 9:17,18 says, “For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth. So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.” God is the one who hardens hearts. Most think the Canons of Dort adopt such a view of a double predestination..
But not only does God predestine the ends (the damnation of those not chosen) but the means as well. First, God has set the standard to please him at absolute perfection. But of course accomplishing such a standard is an impossibility. “There is none righteous, no not one.” or “All have sinned and fallen short...” or “Be perfect, even as your Father is perfect.” By setting a standard of perfection God excludes anyone from accomplishing such an impossible goal. Second, God credits everyone with the sin of Adam before they are even born. Even as David said in Psalm 51:5, “For I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” So by God’s determination and act, all have failed the test of pleasing God because he credits all with Adam’s sin. This human failure was accomplished by God even before a person is born. Then third, God has imputed a sinful nature to all human beings, also before birth, with the result that all people have a natural inclination to sin. The apostle Paul talks about his own entrapment by his sinful nature in Romans 7:14-25 where he concludes by saying he is one miserable person because of his enslavement to sin. (Paul finds his hope in Jesus because he is one of the chosen or elect.) But you see, it was God who imputed or credited this sinful nature to all people before birth without asking if anyone wanted such a nature. God not only predetermined the ends of damnation for those not chosen to salvation, he also determined the means by which he would ensure such failure by human beings. As Paul says, God hardens the hearts of those not chosen to salvation. This is the act of God. And somehow, God blames human beings for their failure to achieve perfection.
Nathaniel, is this what you are calling the grace and love of God? Is this what you are referring to as the grace, long suffering, patience, and toleration of God, which lasted some 430 years? You see God’s hatred, according to the Bible, actually goes back to the mind of God before time.
A short response to Greg: If I read my Bible correctly, the gospel invitation may be extended to all people. That sounds like really good news. But the question not answered is, if people cannot respond to the gospel invitation, is it a sincere offer or really good news? “Many are called but few are chosen.” If we don’t go below the surface of the Bible’s teaching, it might seem that both Nathaniel and Greg’s comments ring true about God’s great love for the masses, but below the surface we see a much more complicated picture of God and a picture that makes sense of verses that speak of God’s hatred of sinners. But then we should ask, who made them sinners? The Bible more than hints that it is God himself. Either the Bible is true or it contains some contains some glaring contradictions. Maybe it is better to stay with a surface understanding of God. It feels so much better, and such a God is much easier to defend.
Thanks for listening. Wishing you a Merry Christmas.
To “Name Withheld”, I have tried (in a previous comment) to show that there is a deeper understanding of God and his purposes than what simply appears on the surface. The Bible teaches a double predestination, a predestination of a chosen people unto salvation and eternal life, and a predestination of those chosen for damnation and an eternity in hell. Granted, this is a difficult idea to swallow, but none the less it is clearly taught in the Bible. Many or most Christians would prefer to acknowledge only a surface teaching of God’s love for all people and God’s desire to see all accept his offer of salvation. So in a sense, there seems to be two teachings taken from the Bible, and both stand in stark contrast to each other (but not in reality).
I sense that those of the Muslim religion do the same thing. Those Muslims that stand in sharp contrast to a radical Islamic viewpoint want to show or claim that the Islamic religion is really about a loving God who wants to embrace humanity in his love. But that may be a more surface or superficial understanding of the Islamic faith. When understood at a deeper level of the Islamic teachings, you get a teaching that may accord in principle with the position held by the radical Islamics. This is what I seem to pick up from the original article and some of the comments. So it could seem that the Muslims do the same thing as Christians, that is, talk out of two sides of their mouths. Blessings to all at this Christmas season.
So, the question is, what do we call those who don’t share the same religion with us, whether it be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah Witness, or agnostic. We are all human beings, so physically, intellectually and psychologically we share a common human identity. We are all on this journey of life, some looking to this religion or that religion for guiding principles, others not following any particular religion at all, some following a religion in name alone, like the many nominal Christians. It might be nice if we could simply recognize that we all have differences, including differences of religion, and work cooperatively toward a better life for all. But it doesn’t work that way, does it?
As Christians, we are more concerned that we don’t call someone of another religion a brother, sister, or even a cousin. Our religion, like most other religions, is mutually exclusive. And because we believe that our own religion (Christianity) identifies us at the deepest level of life, we look at everyone outside with suspicion or intolerance. We don’t really consider ourselves on the same journey of life that outsiders are on. We are too different from the others to share a common journey or a common destiny (heaven for the Christian and hell for the others).
In fact, it is this difference of religions that has been a root cause of many wars in the course of history, including the Christian Crusades. But long before the Crusades, the God of the Jews and Christianity was demonstrating his animosity toward those of other religions. In the Old Testament, God told his chosen people to slaughter all the people, men, women, and children, who were in possession of the promised land prior to the Jews arrival. Hmm, kinda like ISIS, but more severe. The Jews were acting on their faith in God, just as Muslim extremists are acting on their faith in Allah.
Of course, we Christians want to claim with the further revelation of God in Christ, our God is now a loving God. We invite all to share in our God’s wonderful salvation and love. But in the last decade or two we seem to have forgotten that although there is a general call or general invitation to all, there is a specific call by the Holy Spirit only to the chosen people of God. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” And those not chosen by God will experience God’s wrath and damnation for eternity. God isn’t really so different from his revelation in the Old Testament. According to the Christian faith, God chooses a specific people as the objects of his love (the Jews in the O.T. and Christians in the N.T.). All others have or will have received from the hand of God his wrath and anger. So it is quite understandable that we would not call an outsider to the Christian religion a brother, sister, or even a cousin. They definitely are outsiders, non relatives. I think Benjamin made that pretty clear in his theological evaluation.
Of course in our present historic situation with the advent of ISIS, we want to blame the Muslim religion, especially, the extremists. They obviously are exclusive of those outside of their religion and have the same attitude as the O.T. Jews and the God of the Bible; those outside of our religion are infidels and deserving of God’s wrath. Those outsiders certainly are not related to our family.
The problem with the variety of religions, is that each one believes that ours is the only true religion. Christians believe that our religion is the only true religion because it is based on God’s inspired revelation and word, therefor absolutely true. The problem though, is that all the major religions of the world believe the same thing. All are in possession of God’s truly inspired word and cannot be faulted. And it’s a statement that cannot be proven false or true. It is merely accepted as true based on faith (for each religion). So how do we really know that all other religions are false and only ours is true? Like other religions, our religion (Christianity) becomes true by faith, at least true to us. Our faith makes it true. Faith is believing what cannot be seen (Hebrews 11:1) And based on the same such faith, the tenets and teachings of other religions are absolutely true to them. But can one religion over the other be proven to be objectively true? You tell me. So you see, religion (even the Christian religion) has not contributed to peace and harmony in the world, in fact just the opposite. And that makes the prospect of true peace in the world very unlikely in the future. So like the Muslims, let’s not call them brothers or sisters, but infidels. Isn’t that what they are to God?
Posted in: A Post-Christmas Advent Reflection
Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.
Posted in: Gabriel's Message to Mary
Thanks Louis for this inspirational thought concerning Mary. It’s interesting that the angel, Gabriel, personally brought a message from God to Mary. I guess that is the work of some angels, being messengers for God. It was also the angel, Gabriel, who brought the text of the Koran to Muhammad in 609 A.D., over a 23 year period. It is based on this that Muslims, like Christians, believe that the Koran (their Scriptures) is the fully inspired word of God and therefor inerrant.
Posted in: John Azumah, a Presbyterian From Ghana, Comments on American Cultural Imperialism
Thanks John for your article (or articles) in which you are critical of our American culture and the way it seems that many American churches (including Reformed and Presbyterian) are following such culture. Could it be that our culture is perhaps more on track than the church on many issues, and therefore the church ends up following culture? If I remember correctly it was the southern USA (the Bible belt) that advocated for slavery and the liberal north that fought against it. It was also Christians who were in the forefront of opposing mixed racial marriages. It was also Christians (the church) who opposed women leadership, whether in the church, family, or society. And on these issues, as well as others (such as creation vss. evolution), the church gave (or gives) Scriptural support for such positions. I think society, although listening to the church for some time, has lost all confidence in the church to give moral or meaningful direction. Eventually the church (and the CRCNA) will probably follow culture (and rightfully so) on the issue of homosexuality.
Posted in: Will Synod 2016 Consider the Wisdom of the Global Church?
Thanks John for your article (or articles) in which you are critical of our American culture and the way it seems that many American churches (including Reformed and Presbyterian) are following such culture. Could it be that our culture is perhaps more on track than the church on many issues, and therefore the church ends up following culture? If I remember correctly it was the southern USA (the Bible belt) that advocated for slavery and the liberal north that fought against it. It was also Christians who were in the forefront of opposing mixed racial marriages. It was also Christians (the church) who opposed women leadership, whether in the church, family, or society. And on these issues, as well as others (such as creation vss. evolution), the church gave (or gives) Scriptural support for such positions. I think society, although listening to the church for some time, has lost all confidence in the church to give moral or meaningful direction. Eventually the church (and the CRCNA) will probably follow culture (and rightfully so) on the issue of homosexuality.
Posted in: Can We Learn From Justin Bieber's Philosophy on Christians and Church?
Thanks Staci for a refreshing article. I like your use of Justin Bieber to get to the heart of what many in our society are thinking about God and Christianity. I don’t want to put words in Justin’s mouth or interpret him wrongly, but you are asking what we (your readers) think or what is our opinion in regard to his comments.
I think that secular society (including Bieber), as well as other religious societies, are offended by Christianity because Christians have and have had throughout history the attitude of, “we are right and you are wrong.” Christianity has always proclaimed there is no other name under heaven, or no other way in the world by which to please God than by Jesus. Whereas, we think we are very gracious and loving by presenting the good news of Jesus, the world thinks that Christians are summarily dismissing what they believe. We go to foreign mission fields and tell Muslims, Hindus, or Jews that their religion will not get them to heaven, and we tell Americans and Canadians that the good they do doesn’t count with God. But of course that is a Christian view and not one shared by the world. Secular societies and other religions believe that the good a person does counts with God. So, the Christian attitude and message of, we are right and you are wrong, makes Christianity very offensive to most the world.
And to Bieber and to much of society, they think the church is disposable because the church is full of hypocrites who think they are right and everyone else is wrong about a loving God who sends everyone to hell except those who believe like us (Christians).
Maybe Jesus has already responded to Bieber in stories like the one of the sheep and goats on judgment day. The sheep who make it to heaven are those who have done good (as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done unto me) and the goats who go to hell are those who have not done good (as you have not done it...). Maybe Jesus is saying, take stock of your life and do good. Or maybe Jesus might have already responded to Bieber by retelling the story of the good Samaritan (who represents the unbeliever) who does what is loving for the injured man, unlike those others who clung to their faith. Again do good, regardless of what you believe. Or he might retell the story of the house built on the rock, which is a house of good deeds. I have a feeling that people in our society might appreciate Jesus’ example and much of his teaching without appreciating the hypocrisy of most Christians (my way or no way).
Of course, we, as Christians, have a different perception of society’s take on us. But the world doesn’t see it, do they? Thanks Staci.
Posted in: Can We Learn From Justin Bieber's Philosophy on Christians and Church?
Thanks Staci and Tim. I appreciate your openness and willingness to share. No doubt, in my mind Staci, you raise some important questions and concerns in regard to the gospel. And you put those concerns into a format that is easy to understand. Both you and Tim, probably hit onto something, by suggesting the building of relationships and letting love lead the way for Christian witness. But that still doesn’t remove the offense of the gospel, Christ is the only hope. We are still saying to the world - whatever you may have thought or whatever other religions teach, ours is the only way to find acceptance with God. Whether building a relationship or showing love, our message is still the same, no other name than Christ. Our way is the only way. It’s not Christians who are always offensive, but the message, especially when it rubs up against other religions or other opinions. I wonder, I know some wonderful people who are not Christian. Christians aren’t the only caring and nice people. Does their niceness, love, or the building of a relationship make their message of God’s love (a different message from ours), change the way Christians think? Christians say, don’t be deceived, only our message is the true message. Don’t be fooled by their kindness. By the same token, do you really think our kindness is really going to convince any thoughtful person? Bottom line, Christianity is still offensive to the world. That’s the nature of the gospel. And the church is still full of closed minded people, even if they’re nice. I doubt that Christianity will ever win any popularity contests, especially in more advanced cultures.
Posted in: When God Offends
Thanks Doug for your article on being offended by God. I don’t know what you were thinking when you wrote this article but I think it reflects some pretty narrow thinking. Tell me Doug, are you at all offended by or object to the Muslim concept of God? Of course they don’t believe in a Triune God. How about the Mormon religion in which the angel, Moroni, gave the twelve golden plates from God to Joseph Smith to be translated into English? Do you object to such a revelation of God? How about the Hindu religion and their belief in a multitude of Gods which are manifestations of the one big God? Do you object to that or are you offended at all by their religion? Those religions and hundreds of other religions could ask you the same question you ask of others. Those other religions, like Christianity, are supported by their own infallible Scriptures which they claim have been inspired or given by God. What makes you think that our Bible is any more God’s word than their Scriptures? And yet I imagine you take offense at those religions and doubt their veracity. So why would anyone other than a Christian believe what is taught by Christians or within the Christian religion? Christianity is just one of many, many religions in the world. Why would you think that the world would possibly believe the Christian concept of God or Christianity any more than any other religion?
But bringing this closer to home, there is very little agreement among Christians as to Christian teaching. There are many hundreds of Christian denominations. Christians may agree on some very basic fundamentals, but otherwise there is very little agreement. Just ask a Catholic, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, and a Reformed person what they believe about Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or what will happen at the end of time. Already there is a multitude of things to be offended by or to object to. Our own Canons of Dort were written in opposition to Arminian beliefs. Reformed Christians were greatly offended by Arminius and his followers. Our own Reformed confessions call the Baptists and Catholics offensive names. We have a long history of objecting to the beliefs of other Christians. Are you saying they were wrong in their objections or at taking offense? So whose Christianity or whose Bible is a person supposed to agree with wholeheartedly, Doug?
Posted in: When God Offends
Sorry Ken, for calling you Doug. My bad.
Posted in: Unpacking the ISIS News Release on the Paris/France Attacks
Thanks Salaam for your articles articulating the basic Muslim perspective. I am by no means an expert in Islamic thinking. So such an article helps with getting into the mind set of those who have a Muslim religious bias. I realize that the Islamic religion upholds a theocratic form of national government, unlike the U.S., Canada, or other democracies. The theocratic form of Islam seems, to me, to come close to what we read of in the Old Testament when God was perceived as Israel’s only ruler. There was not a separation of church and state by which the state was governed by separate laws from that of religious law. That helps me to understand how a Muslim mind set can consider that all others (other than Muslims) are infidels and worthy of death.
When Israel (in the Old Testament) was told to go into the promised land and take possession of this land by killing all the inhabitants of this land, this killing was to include men, women, and children. It didn’t matter if some of these inhabitants were good or not. In God’s mind they were all infidels and deserved to die. The Israelites were not given any other option than to destroy the people living in this promised land. It didn’t matter that this land had previously (previous to God’s promise) and legitimately belonged to other people. The Israelites were not to question God but to simply obey. God’s honor was at stake and disobedience as an affront on his honor. This is the God whom we, as Christians, worship. Just as killing non Muslims makes no sense to me, neither does our Old Testament concept of a just Jahweh God.
I think also contributing to this Old Testament and Muslim perspective is the idea that God’s greatest concern was for his own chosen people. God has a right to chose a chosen race (people) out from the sea of humanity to demonstrate his love particularly on them. Those outside of the chosen race were deemed as of little worth unless these outsiders were to acquiesce to the chosen nation’s God or deity. We see this today, and seems to be made clear in your article, Salaam. And it also seems to be clear from our own historic Christian roots, as well. If we can pretend to understand the God of the Old Testament, then we should have some understanding of the ISIS mentality of today. God help us.
P.S: Just as there are many Muslim groups disassociating from a radical Islamic perspective, so there are many Christians who try to redefine Christianity into a more moderate and loving religion, as well. Just as many Muslims can find sympathetic scripture passages to soften the core of Islamic belief, that same is true of Christianity. You can make Scripture say whatever you may want, whatever the religion.
Posted in: Unpacking the ISIS News Release on the Paris/France Attacks
Thanks Nathaniel, for your response to my comment. I can see, from your comment, that you want to hang on to the idea that the God of the Bible is a loving and gracious God. But I think you are looking at the Bible’s teaching only at a surface level. You are not considering what the Bible teaches about God below the surface at the deeper level. As I see it, you are looking at the veneer on the surface and not the substance. What I have appreciated, in the past, about the Reformed theological understanding of the Bible is that it goes deeper in trying to understand the Bible’s teaching.
You suggest that God was very patient and gracious with the people in the land of Canaan, in fact for 430 years. I’m not sure where you get this time frame from. Are you trying to calculate from the time of Adam up to the time when God told the Israelites to go in to the land and slaughter the people of Canaan? You portray God as gracious, patient, longsuffering and tolerant for this length of time. I’m not sure where you draw this from. In fact it sounds more like your own summation of God’s character toward the Canaanites and Hittites, rather than the Bible’s.
If I read my Bible correctly, it is only the chosen of God who are loved by God. The chosen people of God, whether in the Old Testament or New, are the ones who are the objects of God’s electing love and of the special ministry of the Holy Spirit by which he draws them to himself. But what about the others, the ones not chosen for salvation? They may hear a general gospel invitation but are not enabled to respond to God’s invitation apart from the Holy Spirit’s empowering and enabling. They are left to their own efforts to win salvation, which we know results in failure.
Those not chosen, the non-elect, are not only left to their own efforts to win God’s favor but are hindered or obstructed by God from having any success in pleasing him, according to the Bible. You see it is not only the elect who are predestined to salvation, but it is also the non-elect who are predestined to damnation. It’s a double predestination. For instance, Romans 9:17,18 says, “For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth. So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.” God is the one who hardens hearts. Most think the Canons of Dort adopt such a view of a double predestination..
But not only does God predestine the ends (the damnation of those not chosen) but the means as well. First, God has set the standard to please him at absolute perfection. But of course accomplishing such a standard is an impossibility. “There is none righteous, no not one.” or “All have sinned and fallen short...” or “Be perfect, even as your Father is perfect.” By setting a standard of perfection God excludes anyone from accomplishing such an impossible goal. Second, God credits everyone with the sin of Adam before they are even born. Even as David said in Psalm 51:5, “For I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” So by God’s determination and act, all have failed the test of pleasing God because he credits all with Adam’s sin. This human failure was accomplished by God even before a person is born. Then third, God has imputed a sinful nature to all human beings, also before birth, with the result that all people have a natural inclination to sin. The apostle Paul talks about his own entrapment by his sinful nature in Romans 7:14-25 where he concludes by saying he is one miserable person because of his enslavement to sin. (Paul finds his hope in Jesus because he is one of the chosen or elect.) But you see, it was God who imputed or credited this sinful nature to all people before birth without asking if anyone wanted such a nature. God not only predetermined the ends of damnation for those not chosen to salvation, he also determined the means by which he would ensure such failure by human beings. As Paul says, God hardens the hearts of those not chosen to salvation. This is the act of God. And somehow, God blames human beings for their failure to achieve perfection.
Nathaniel, is this what you are calling the grace and love of God? Is this what you are referring to as the grace, long suffering, patience, and toleration of God, which lasted some 430 years? You see God’s hatred, according to the Bible, actually goes back to the mind of God before time.
A short response to Greg: If I read my Bible correctly, the gospel invitation may be extended to all people. That sounds like really good news. But the question not answered is, if people cannot respond to the gospel invitation, is it a sincere offer or really good news? “Many are called but few are chosen.” If we don’t go below the surface of the Bible’s teaching, it might seem that both Nathaniel and Greg’s comments ring true about God’s great love for the masses, but below the surface we see a much more complicated picture of God and a picture that makes sense of verses that speak of God’s hatred of sinners. But then we should ask, who made them sinners? The Bible more than hints that it is God himself. Either the Bible is true or it contains some contains some glaring contradictions. Maybe it is better to stay with a surface understanding of God. It feels so much better, and such a God is much easier to defend.
Thanks for listening. Wishing you a Merry Christmas.
Posted in: Unpacking the ISIS News Release on the Paris/France Attacks
To “Name Withheld”, I have tried (in a previous comment) to show that there is a deeper understanding of God and his purposes than what simply appears on the surface. The Bible teaches a double predestination, a predestination of a chosen people unto salvation and eternal life, and a predestination of those chosen for damnation and an eternity in hell. Granted, this is a difficult idea to swallow, but none the less it is clearly taught in the Bible. Many or most Christians would prefer to acknowledge only a surface teaching of God’s love for all people and God’s desire to see all accept his offer of salvation. So in a sense, there seems to be two teachings taken from the Bible, and both stand in stark contrast to each other (but not in reality).
I sense that those of the Muslim religion do the same thing. Those Muslims that stand in sharp contrast to a radical Islamic viewpoint want to show or claim that the Islamic religion is really about a loving God who wants to embrace humanity in his love. But that may be a more surface or superficial understanding of the Islamic faith. When understood at a deeper level of the Islamic teachings, you get a teaching that may accord in principle with the position held by the radical Islamics. This is what I seem to pick up from the original article and some of the comments. So it could seem that the Muslims do the same thing as Christians, that is, talk out of two sides of their mouths. Blessings to all at this Christmas season.
Posted in: Is it Legitimate for a Christian to Refer to a Muslim as a Brother/Sister?
So, the question is, what do we call those who don’t share the same religion with us, whether it be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah Witness, or agnostic. We are all human beings, so physically, intellectually and psychologically we share a common human identity. We are all on this journey of life, some looking to this religion or that religion for guiding principles, others not following any particular religion at all, some following a religion in name alone, like the many nominal Christians. It might be nice if we could simply recognize that we all have differences, including differences of religion, and work cooperatively toward a better life for all. But it doesn’t work that way, does it?
As Christians, we are more concerned that we don’t call someone of another religion a brother, sister, or even a cousin. Our religion, like most other religions, is mutually exclusive. And because we believe that our own religion (Christianity) identifies us at the deepest level of life, we look at everyone outside with suspicion or intolerance. We don’t really consider ourselves on the same journey of life that outsiders are on. We are too different from the others to share a common journey or a common destiny (heaven for the Christian and hell for the others).
In fact, it is this difference of religions that has been a root cause of many wars in the course of history, including the Christian Crusades. But long before the Crusades, the God of the Jews and Christianity was demonstrating his animosity toward those of other religions. In the Old Testament, God told his chosen people to slaughter all the people, men, women, and children, who were in possession of the promised land prior to the Jews arrival. Hmm, kinda like ISIS, but more severe. The Jews were acting on their faith in God, just as Muslim extremists are acting on their faith in Allah.
Of course, we Christians want to claim with the further revelation of God in Christ, our God is now a loving God. We invite all to share in our God’s wonderful salvation and love. But in the last decade or two we seem to have forgotten that although there is a general call or general invitation to all, there is a specific call by the Holy Spirit only to the chosen people of God. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” And those not chosen by God will experience God’s wrath and damnation for eternity. God isn’t really so different from his revelation in the Old Testament. According to the Christian faith, God chooses a specific people as the objects of his love (the Jews in the O.T. and Christians in the N.T.). All others have or will have received from the hand of God his wrath and anger. So it is quite understandable that we would not call an outsider to the Christian religion a brother, sister, or even a cousin. They definitely are outsiders, non relatives. I think Benjamin made that pretty clear in his theological evaluation.
Of course in our present historic situation with the advent of ISIS, we want to blame the Muslim religion, especially, the extremists. They obviously are exclusive of those outside of their religion and have the same attitude as the O.T. Jews and the God of the Bible; those outside of our religion are infidels and deserving of God’s wrath. Those outsiders certainly are not related to our family.
The problem with the variety of religions, is that each one believes that ours is the only true religion. Christians believe that our religion is the only true religion because it is based on God’s inspired revelation and word, therefor absolutely true. The problem though, is that all the major religions of the world believe the same thing. All are in possession of God’s truly inspired word and cannot be faulted. And it’s a statement that cannot be proven false or true. It is merely accepted as true based on faith (for each religion). So how do we really know that all other religions are false and only ours is true? Like other religions, our religion (Christianity) becomes true by faith, at least true to us. Our faith makes it true. Faith is believing what cannot be seen (Hebrews 11:1) And based on the same such faith, the tenets and teachings of other religions are absolutely true to them. But can one religion over the other be proven to be objectively true? You tell me. So you see, religion (even the Christian religion) has not contributed to peace and harmony in the world, in fact just the opposite. And that makes the prospect of true peace in the world very unlikely in the future. So like the Muslims, let’s not call them brothers or sisters, but infidels. Isn’t that what they are to God?