Churchianity

Some Christians "play" church and go through the motions of worship and never go for the right reason--to worship God--they say, "I didn't get much out of worship today!" (maybe they should concentrate on what they put into it). God condemns us for having worship without our heart in it or hypocritical worship, this is just "memorizing the dance of the pious." A real hypocrite (hypocrite means wearing a mask, or acting in a play) is not one who falls short of his ideals, but one who uses religion as a cover-up and knows he is insincere.

The theme of Psalms is Psa. 29:2, "Ascribe the Lord the glory due to His name, worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness." Deut. 17 condemns insincere and dishonest worship or sacrifice. Amaziah was known for doing the will of the Lord, but not with a true heart. Someone has said that there are 4 persons that we show: The one God sees; the one you see; the one the world sees; and the one your intimate friends see. Let's be careful not to just have a "public persona" and parade our spirituality or piety.

Worship should be a delight and our feelings should be in it (or we are blaspheming God--like doing it as a "duty" not because we want to) as the command "Delight yourself in the Lord..." says. In summary: Psa. 84:1 says, "My soul longs, even faints, for the courts of the Lord" and Psa. 122:1 says, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the house of the Lord.'"

We can worship or be edified in a "crowd," but we need to function in a local body of believers with our spiritual gift. Rick Warren says that there is no "one-size-fits-all" for worship and there are many ways to worship. He says we believe, we belong, we become. We are to be committed to our church as a token of our commitment to Christ--they go hand in hand--and then we will grow and be accountable.

I can't stand the legalistic crowd that goes to church thinking that will make them a Christian, like going into a garage will make you a car, or eating a donut will make you a cop. They are called the "nod-to-God" crowd, which thinks it is fulfilling its obligation by a short visit to the local church, just out of guilt. The true Christian wants to worship God and wants to fellowship with other believers with whom he is a "fellow in the same ship." I think some mega-churches miss the boat in worship, you just don't hear people "amen" the preacher (where is the worship in the Spirit and in the truth?). But different people are at different stages and God has a purpose for their existence--mega-churches aren't where I'm at, because I want to know my pastor personally, not just from afar.

Some think their religious performance is enough to save them. To some, it's only a formality and not a relationship. John MacArthur says, "We can't enter through our religious emotion or our sanctified feelings....Lip service is no good--there must be obedience...You don't get into the kingdom by sincerity, by religiosity, by reformation, by kindness, by service to the church, not even by simply naming the name of Christ; you get there only by personal trust and faith in [the person and work of] Christ." We can have a form of godliness and be empty. The church at Sardis had a reputation that it was alive, yet it was dead (see Rev. 3:1). We can even have "sanctimonious emotions" and not know Christ. There is a difference between knowing the Word and knowing the Author of the Word.

We can have many experiences in church and everyone has a different one, but I believe we should test our experiences by the Word of God and not the Word of God by our experiences. That's an important concept--we are not to become either rationalists nor empiricists (going by reason or experience only), but belief in the Bible (revelation) and sound teaching. The more we learn the more we realize where the wiggle room is and what is not worth fighting about. We are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Sectarianism is a sin according to 1 Cor. 1, and we shouldn't divide into factions if we can help it. Pascal said, "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You An Arminian? Take This Test!

Most people know that Calvinists (or Reformed, if you will) believe in the five points of Reformed theology, unless they are a so-called four-pointer, of course, but here's a test that may surprise you. In case you aren't familiar with TULIP, the acrostic that stands for "total depravity," "unconditional election," "limited atonement," "irresistible grace," and "perseverance of the saints," I will review. T means we are inherently bad, not good--we are not as bad as we could be, but as bad off as we could be in God's estimation; U means God doesn't base His election of us on anything meritorious in us, not prescient election, which says God merely sees who will believe and elects them (that would be meritorious); L means God has a particular redemption or definite atonement in mind--it is the Arminians that actually limit the atonement, the Calvinists make it efficacious for the elect. P means God preserves us despite ourselves, otherwise known as eternal security.

Denying any of these doctrines makes you part Arminian. The Synod of Dort in 1618 condemned the Remonstrants who were Arminian and affirmed these five points. Calvinism is the biblical and orthodox position, not Arminianism, developed by Jacobus Arminius (his Latin name, who was Jacob Hermann in his own tongue) of The Netherlands, who was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and lost his professorship (he was actually a Reformed theologian).

A: Salvation is synergistic, or man cooperates with God
C: Salvation is monergistic and grace is efficacious and irresistible & God's work
A: All have the ability to believe if they want to
C: No one can believe, or will to believe apart from grace
A: Faith is the reason we are saved, it is our righteousness, it is a work of man
C: Faith is a gift of God, it is the work of God, but our act
A: Faith is reckoned as righteousness
C: Faith is reckoned unto (the instrumentality or means of) righteousness
A: Salvation is a cooperation between man and God-man takes the first step of faith and meets God half-way
C: God initiates salvation and grants faith through grace--we cannot believe apart from grace's intervention
A: Man has a free will and can operate independently of God, even thwarting Him
C: The will is enslaved to sin, in bondage and not freed, though he is a free
moral agent
A: Faith is a meritorious work accomplished by man that leads to salvation
C: Faith is a gift of God that is unto salvation, the instrumentality
A: The atonement saves none for sure, but makes possible the salvation of all if
they believe
C: The atonement was accomplished when Christ said, "It is finished" and secures the elect's salvation.

Arminians above represented by A; Calvinists or Reformed by C

The Arminian believes he met God "half-way" and pats himself on the back for his salvation--not giving all the glory to God (a battle cry of the Reformation was sola Deo Gloria--to God alone be the glory.)

The Romanist believes grace is necessary, but not sufficient--one must do something meritorious. However, grace is the sin qua non of salvation--it is necessary and sufficient. Have you heard of the Geritol testimony where the person said Geritol really helped him but he also took his grandmother's secret recipe? Of course, that testimony could not be used because it could not be proved the Geritol was the answer.

R. C. Sproul quotes J. I. Packer as follows: "The difference between them [Arminians and Calvinists] is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man...."  The big question is whether Jesus saves us outright, or just enables us to save ourselves--does He make salvation possible, or assured?

Now, I do not believe Calvinists should show contempt for Arminians, because if they are evangelical they are probably Christians, too, and also there are very few Calvinists around who can say they were never Arminians at one time or at least convinced of one of their doctrines. I do not believe it is good to label our fellow believers, but this distinction is very clear and is like Protestant/Catholic. One can be an evangelical Arminian, of course. Arminian churches are Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Christianity Different?

There is a vast difference between "religion" and Christianity. Religion is the best that man can do, while Christianity is the best that God can do. All religions have their emphasis on human achievement, while Christianity stresses God's accomplishment. Religion is based on man's merit, while Christianity is based on Christ's merit on our behalf. Religion is secured through works, not grace, which is unique to Christianity.  Religion is about men trying to find God or reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching down to men and finding them where they are.   In a works system, you never know how much is enough--so you never have assurance. Only Christianity gives assurance of salvation.

Religion is essentially a do-it-yourself proposition, whereby you lift yourself up by your own bootstraps (in the Hindu religion, for instance, one must suffer his karma ( an iron-clad system of cause and effect), and be his own island, there is no hope for the outcast or failure). Religion has nothing to say to the failures, losers, and outcasts.

On the other hand, only if you realize you are a sinner and a failure does Christianity have any message for you. Truth, not just Christianity, is exclusive.   Christianity claims to be the only way to Heaven, but not because Christians are egotistical (if something is true because I say so, that is egotism), but because Christ himself made this truth claim: "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, except through Me [Jesus]." Truth, by its very nature, is intolerant of error. Christianity is not a system of ethics, but a relationship with Christ.  It's not about knowing or reciting a creed but knowing a Person.  If you take Mohammad out of Islam, or Buddha out of Buddhism,  you still have the religion intact, but if you take Christ out of Christianity, you disembowel it.

Christianity is a religion of paradoxes: The way up is down, the meek shall inherit the earth, etc. The way to be filled is only to be emptied.  There are miracles in other religions, but they are believed because the religion is already believed, you take the miracles out of Christianity and you destroy the faith because the miracles give testimony to the truth. Only in Christianity can you know for sure that you are saved; no Muslim knows for sure he is going to Paradise, or Hindu or Buddhist that he is going to Nirvana. Yes, Christianity is so unique that it couldn't be a religion of man's invention, but of divine origin. Christianity seems too good to be true to some, a fairy tale comes true, but only a Jesus could invent a Jesus! 

Jesus, never toned down his requirements to get followers, but made stringent terms and even tried to discourage followers, because He knew the cross that had to be borne. The invitation is to all to come to Christ: "Ho, everyone who thirsts..." "Taste and see that the Lord is good."   Jesus invites scrutiny!  Yes, salvation is free, but it costs everything. It costs more to miss out!  Other religions are popular because of geopolitical or cultural concerns, but Christianity requires you to die to yourself and deny yourself. Hardly something one would make up. Works have a place in both systems, but they are an "in order to" in religion, while they are a "therefore" in Christianity. Religion boils down to being a system of "doing" while Christianity is "done."  It's a done deal, a fait accompli! 

In short, religion is a list of "dos" and "don'ts," while Christianity is a relationship with a personal, living, growing, vital fellowship with Christ. How many people claim that Allah loves them, or that they have a relationship with Mohammad or Allah, or Buddha? How many sings, "Allah loves me ..." What if Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker that the force loved him?   We can only be satisfied with the love of a person equal or superior to us. The truth is, is that they don't know their "gods" and don't believe they can know them. Christianity believes in a personal God that we can know and have fellowship with. It is not a system of ethics or rules to live by, but a relationship. Religion always says, "do" and Christianity says, "done."  We don't boast in our achievements, but glory in God's accomplishment on the cross on our behalf. Works have a part in both, but in religion, they are a "have to" not a "want to."

Christ's work on the cross has been accomplished, it is finished, and we can add nothing to it, we cannot improve upon it, all we need is faith in that work on our behalf. Christianity is the only faith that stresses grace. God did for us what we couldn't do and reached down to us, taking the initiative. Salvation is a free gift and we cannot earn it or deserve it, or pay it back, but we can know security in it. Christianity is the only "positive" faith system that offers hope to failures, outcasts, and sinners. Buddhism and Hinduism are negative and pessimistic religions that view life as evil and view Nirvana essentially as the cessation of consciousness. Heaven of the Bible is clearly not of human imagination, as it seems Paradise of Islam or the Third Heaven of Mormonism is.

The problem is that people get enough religion to make them immune to the real thing, just like getting vaccinated. Man is an imitator, but God wants to regenerate us--viva la difference!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Do We Need Proof For God

Was Richard Dawkins right in his book The God Delusion that claims belief in God is like a "virus that the naive catch"? You cannot prove God to the unwilling (neither can you disprove God to the willing), belief is a choice we make. ("If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know....") If I could prove God, then I would be equal to God intellectually. There is just enough evidence to believe in God if you want to, and enough darkness to not believe if you don't. "God's chief quarrel with man is that he doesn't SEEK Him," says John Stott.

The Bible presupposes the existence of God and doesn't try to prove His existence, but says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." I hope the following "proof's"shows the probability of God's existence to the objective searcher, and will silence the unbeliever who thinks believers are ignorant (actually agnostic means ignoramus). John R. W. Stott is quoted as saying, "We must not pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity." The problem is this: Man has the INCONVENIENT truth of believing in God because as Aldous Huxley said, disbelief liberates us sexually. We are going against the tide.

Blaise Pascal has said there is a "God-shaped" vacuum in our souls. St. Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo, said that our souls are restless till they find their rest in God. Eccles. 3:11 says that God "has set eternity in the hearts of men." God cannot be proved because He is not measurable by scientific means; you cannot have 3 feet of love or 5 pounds of justice and likewise, God is not tangible, visible, nor audible--but you cannot deny their reality. In sum, These things cannot be verified by science.

History is another area of the fact that, since it is nonrepeatable, it is not verifiable scientifically. The evolutionist who denies God actually believes in infinite time plus sheer chance. Paul Little calls this the "junkyard mentality," where one believes that the cosmos or the earth just happened like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a jet plane, (or like throwing a 6 on a die 5 million times in a row). Even if the whole cosmos were filled with junkyards, it still would not happen. Chance is also compared to a blind man trying to solve Rubik's Cube, which would take 1.35 trillion years if he moved one time per second (according to Sir Fred Hoyle). Believing that life happened by chance is not even accepted by many scientists today. Instead, they believe in "Directed Panspermia," which is that life was somehow planted here from outer space! (This is called the principle of infinite regression, thought of by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.)

As for the complexity of life, one human cell contains more information in it than an entire volume of an encyclopedia. Chance is truly stretching it--there must be a designer for this design. Doesn't a building have an architect? "Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (cf. Heb. 3:4).

Several arguments for the existence of God have made a foothold into Christian theology. They are as follows:

The ontological proof (God exists because we have an idea of Him, like justice must exist because we have thought of it, for example, where did we get the idea of justice if it doesn't exist?--the greatest thought man can have is of God, for instance--there is a tug towards God like the moon's tides); the cosmological proof (every effect must have a cause, nothing happens by itself, God must be the uncaused cause, first cause, or unmoved Mover of the Universe, not that they have discovered the cosmos had a beginning, there must be a Beginner by deduction--therefore, that begins to exist has a cause);

the teleological proof (the purpose [atheists avoid this word because it implies there is purpose to life--existentialist philosophy denies any purpose for man], order, design, harmony and beauty, and intelligence in creation means someone must be behind it who has great taste or organized skill and is not haphazard--we are not a fluke; for instance, the Anthropic Principle says that the earth was designed perfectly for man, thus indicating ID or intelligent design (implying a Supreme Mind);

the moral argument says that God must care a lot about right and wrong--he is seen as a judge or arbiter, we all have a sense of right and wrong and appeal to a higher standard, a moral compass or higher law, that we assume everyone accepts, and the laws of nature are known to everyone innately ("They show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts...their conscience either accusing them or excusing them.") and we all violate them, there must be a judge to mete out justice in the end or life would be a joke ("Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"), there are things universally accepted as wrong, and this is not a matter of social evolution or a matter of taste, like saying I don't like broccoli and you do; so one of us is wrong--examples would be incest or rape, which would be okay if there was no God--if there is no God, everything is up for grabs);

and finally, the ethnological argument (virtually every tribe known to man, no matter how primitive, has an awareness of God in some form--so it must be natural for us to believe in God that you have to teach a child NOT to believe in God, it is so inborn)--no one is BORN an atheist!--but note that there are two kinds of atheists: practical, who live as if there were no God; and theoretical, who have rational arguments they have thought out, which are usually more from bad experiences than philosophy.

There is no easy answer to evil, though, but faith sees things in a new light. They say: "How come bad things happen to good people?" Well, how come good things happen to bad people? Are we not all "bad" in God's eyes?  Remember, no religion has the complete answer to evil. God's relation to evil and sin is a mystery; however, God is holy and can have no contact with evil (like matter and antimatter) and cannot approve of it (cf. Hab. 1:13).

Napoleon, who called Jesus "The Emperor of Love," was once asked if he believed in God: He said, "But, monsieur, who made all that?" (pointing to the Heavens, which "declare the glory of God"). Kant said that two things inspired him to believe in God: The Heavens above and the conscience within. Mortimer Adler says that almost all of the great thinkers have strongly believed in God. More than 90 percent of astronomers today believe in God (don't forget the first major ones:  Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo). There certainly is more evidence for God than against Him.

Pascal offered his famous "wager," whereby he asked someone if they would want to be on the losing side of a bet where the ante is upped and the outcome is an eternity. If he were wrong in believing in God, nothing lost, but if the unbeliever was wrong, he would spend eternity in hell--not worth the risk, indeed!   It is said that ninety-nine percent of all the great thinkers have believed in God! Bertrand Russell was asked, according to D. James Kennedy, what he would say if it turned out that there was a God; he would ask Him, "Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Carl Sagan didn't want to say there was no God, but that there just wasn't any evidence for Him--there's never enough for the skeptic.

To the open mind, there is plenty of evidence (there is just enough light to see Him if you will, and just enough darkness to deny Him if you will). But God has left the matter an open question, and will not force Himself on anyone who doesn't want to believe. Someone has said that not believing in God frees one sexually--well, that about sums it up--they don't want to believe because they don't WANT to, and it would interfere with their sexual mores.

Needless to say, philosophers have debated the existence of God through the ages. Plato called Him the Supreme Good. But without revelation from God himself, we would never figure out what God is like. "Canst thou by searching find out God..." "And even though Jesus did many miracles...they WOULD not [not "could not"] believe in Him" (cf. John 12:37).

It is not for lack of evidence that one does not believe--but out of experiences in life that hardened one, or the condition of one's heart. Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God...." We really don't have an intellectual problem, but a moral one. When they say, "What about the Pygmy in Africa?" they are just making a smokescreen. The real issue is "Jesus Christ" and who He is. Christianity is based on objective historical facts--the resurrection of Christ from the dead--which is arguably the most attested fact of antiquity. To the unwilling heart, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing, there is more than enough. We do not have blind faith, but faith based on evidence.

The problem with believers is having "blind unbelief" (which is not believing and not knowing why or looking at the evidence either way). People suppress their natural belief in God, because of moral considerations. Atheism is a universal negative, and you cannot prove a universal negative--how could you be everywhere in the cosmos at one time to prove that there were no little green men, for example? (To say that there is no God would require omniscience and/or omnipresence like God Himself.)  So, atheism is irrational and presumptuous.

The Christian doesn't need philosophical "proof" to believe, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to him and convicts him of the truth. But the "proof's" show the reasonableness of Christianity, and that one isn't ignorant to believe. The "proof" of the pudding is in the eating, as they say ("Taste and see that the Lord is good." (Ps. 34:8) Lee Strobel calls this "properly basic belief." We experience Christ in the here and now as the Holy Spirit bears witness; all philosophical proofs just reinforce and validate our faith as being reasonable.

Pascal is quoted by D. James Kennedy as saying that we do not have what appears to be the absence of God, nor His manifest presence, but the presence of a "hidden God" ("Oh, that I might know where I might find Him"). The point is that God desires to be found by those who seek Him. "He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." "Seek and you shall find." "You shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." It seems like if we have to prove God, the skeptic should have to disprove Him: there's no smoking-gun evidence for either position, both require faith.  However, it takes more faith to disbelieve in God.

Do not let anyone get your focus off the issue and the main thing: The gospel of Jesus Christ, the facts of which are based on objective historical proof and the experience would not happen if the facts weren't true. If there was no God, the cosmos would have no meaning, but we wouldn't know it. This is like a deaf man being aware of music by himself. Another question would be "Why do I feel gratitude if there is no one to be grateful to?" Where did we get the idea of justice? We must believe that He exists from all the fingerprints of His hand in all creation.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Can God Forget?

It is said in Holy Writ that God forgives and forgets. He wipes the slate clean. Like an Etch A Sketch's slate being cleaned, or a computer memory being erased, or a file deleted, giving us a fresh start. He puts our sins into the bottom of the sea, as it were, and puts up a no-fishing sign. "Yes, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea" (Micah 7:19). "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions" ( Ps. 103:12).

We shouldn't keep "dredging up" old sins (as Rick Warren says) and reminding God of what He has forgotten. If we do confess a sin again and remind Him of it, He says, "What sin?" "For You have cast all my sin behind Your back" (Isa. 38:17). "...[H]e canceled every record of the debt we had to pay..." (Col. 2:14).

God doesn't hold any of our confessed sins against us, but we still may suffer the consequences of our actions (reaping what we sow). Sometimes we cannot forget, and we must learn to forgive ourselves. "I, even I, am He who blots out your sins for My sake, and will not remember your sins" (Isa. 43:25). "I have blotted out your transgressions like a thick cloud, and your sins like a heavy mist..." (Isa. 44:22). "...For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12).

Yes, God does forget, and we should, too. Even if we have terrible sins, there is hope: "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, and though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isa. 1:18).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Saved By Grace Alone

The Reformers believed in "Five Only's" (anything else is not Christianity) which are as follows: sola gratia (grace alone); soli Christo (through Christ alone); sola fide (by faith alone); sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as authority); and Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). There are three possibilities of salvation scenarios: by man's effort alone, by a combination of man and God's effort, and by God's work alone. The only way we can have the assurance of salvation is if it is by God's work alone; otherwise, you never know how much work is enough for salvation.

Arminians believe that God gives equal grace to all and that believers just improved and took advantage of that grace by virtue of their works of faith, repentance, etc. In other words, they meet God half-way and cooperate with Him. They are really patting themselves on the back for their salvation. God wouldn't be God if He didn't get all the glory for our salvation. We don't get any of the glory for it. We share in HIS glory, it is not ours. Titus 3:7 says we are "saved by grace." "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

When you realize that faith is a gift of God you will realize that salvation is grace from beginning to end. It is the work of God, though it is our act--God doesn't exercise faith ("What do you have that you didn't receive?"). Christ is the "author and finisher of our faith". You have "believed through grace" (cf. Acts 18:27), and "it has been granted unto you...to believe..." (Phil. 1:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:1). Actually, God opens our hearts to believe and overcomes our reluctance and makes the unwilling willing. "God opened the heart of Lydia to pay attention ..." (Acts 16:14). We did not psych ourselves up for faith, nor did we conjure it up or catch it like a fever; rather, it came to us by the preaching of the Word. ("Faith comes by the hearing, and by hearing of the Word of God.")

Repentance is the flip-side of faith and also is "granted." (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 5:31; 11:18) Faith and repentance go hand in hand, and  are complimentary. You cannot have saving faith without genuine repentance. But remember that the whole deal is the gift of God. Martin Luther says we contribute nothing to our salvation.  "Salvation is of the Lord"  (Jonah 2:9). 

Luther could not harmonize Paul and James on justification. James said we were justified by faith and works and Paul that we were justified by faith alone. What James is saying is that a mere profession of faith, a dead faith without any resultant work, does not justify. The Reformers formulation was that we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Paul was referring to the works of the law, and they do not justify. James is talking about any work proceeding from faith, and it is the natural consequence of true living faith, which is a living relationship with Jesus Christ. "If a man SAYS he has faith..." refers to a mere profession (just saying we have faith or lip service).

The demons believe the facts about God, but don't do acts of faith that result. A mere head knowledge or assent (known as "story faith" or "historical faith") will not do (this is called acquiescence). We are not justified by the works of the law, but if no good deeds result, our faith is useless and dead. We will all get the opportunity to demonstrate our faith and prove it by our actions, just like Abraham had his opportunity with Isaac. So Paul stresses the initial act of faith and James the evidential acts that follow. Mere profession of faith doesn't cut it.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Casting Lots In The Bible

There are a few examples of casting lots in the Bible, like when Jonah was aboard the ship to Tarshish (and they cast lots to determine who was at fault), and at Christ's crucifixion; however, there was no money involved and the people were simply using lots as a way of making a decision, like the apostles deciding who the twelvth apostle would be to replace Judas.

The Bible teaches clearly from Prov.16:33 that the "lot is cast," but the decision is "wholly from the Lord." God is sovereign, even in minutiae like so-called random throwing of dice. "God doesn't play dice," said Einstein, and that means there really is no such thing as luck or chance in His universe.

Jonathan Edwards said, he ascribes absolute sovereignty to God. Flipping a coin, as the modern-day version, at a football game, for instance, is not gambling either, but merely a convention. There is one type of "holy dice" in the Bible, and that is the Urim and Thummim, which was a "yes or no" proposition, in which God was asked a question of His will. But that does not mean we should "tempt" the Lord or put Him to the test and play dice to find out his will, like a sort of ouija board game with God. God expects us to use sound biblical principles like prayer, studying the Word, and counseling.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Playing The Lottery Sin?

Of course, gambling and playing the lottery are not mentioned in the Bible specifically as sin--so it's hard to make a case against it. God looks at the motive--does the individual desire to get rich, or does he have greed and love for money? Is he bored and looking for entertainment? ("The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil....") To be perspicuous, I am not a protagonist of any sort of gambling, since I cannot see Jesus doing it. "What would Jesus do?" is a good motto to live by. One should ask the questions: Can I ask Jesus' blessing on this? Can I invite Jesus with me in this? Many who play are obsessive-compulsive and in bondage like an alcoholic. They need to be set free and see the light. They think they've got the "bug," but really they've just been fooled by the lure of the destroyer-Apollyon (the devil).

There is no such thing as luck, so why believe in it? Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The Epicureans believed in chance, and the Stoics believed in fate--these are the two philosophies that seem to distinguish the gamblers. In essence, they are not trusting God to supply all their needs. Some say that if they tithe, they can do what they want with "their" money, but, as a matter of fact, all our money belongs to God, and the question should be "how much of God's money do I spend on myself?" We should trust in Providence, not happenstance. In the parable of the stewards, none of them used the money to gamble. As for stewardship, it is good advice to bet what you can afford to lose--not what you want to win if you must gamble.

Why should I be so concerned about this issue? Well, it has invaded the church as a condoned behavior that no one preaches about, like gluttony. Samuel Rutherford said that the more lively sense of sin, the less sin. What if you should win a million dollars? God sometimes gives us what we want, but are we prepared for it? The gambler can be guilty of worshiping at the shrine of "almighty chance," which is idolatry. In sum, gambling is not a sin per se, but it is unwise and should be avoided Many who condone it, don't do it themselves; why set a poor example and jeopardize your testimony, or do the devil a favor and love the world or the things of the world?

The call to holiness, "to come out from among them and be separate" is not something that can be commanded, one must get "convicted" on his own. So, don't think I condemn all lottery players, but I think there is a lot of abuse and slavery.

What may be a sin for me and my testimony, may not be for the baby believer for whom God doesn't require as much responsibility and testimony. Nothing is sin that isn't named or implied in Scripture, but the mature believer will see it as unwise.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Introduction To Science & The Bible

You know that in the early 20th-century modernism was the rule and society thought that science had all the answers. Evolution, a time-honored scientific tenet of FAITH has infiltrated philosophy and ethics, man even justifying himself by it. The so-called "survival of the fittest" and "law of the jungle" are the rules of nature. Today we are in danger of lapsing into "scientism" where we see science as a faith or religion and the ultimate authority. (It is actually deifying science.)  

Some things are out of the REALM of science--like ethics and morality. Some things simply cannot be measured, such as love or patience; for instance, you cannot take a foot of love or a pound of patience. If you cannot measure something is it out of the jurisdiction of science. Science, in other words, is only one way to truth. Miracles are not contradictory to science, they are just outside the realm of a scientific experiment.

In sum, there are LIMITS to our powers of observation, rationalization, experimentation, and knowledge via scientific endeavor. That is, when some scientists make deductions, they leave miracles outside of the pool of live options. (Lee Strobel refers to this as "inference to the best explanation.) There is nothing wrong with Sir Francis Bacon's scientific method, it's our presuppositions that are leading us astray. There is no such thing as total objectivity, except with God.

The main reason people believe in evolution is that they don't want the consequences of believing in God and that would affect their sexual mores, as Thomas Huxley maintained. There is absolutely no proof of it and it can't be proved, but they believe it nevertheless because the only alternative is unpalatable-- theism.

Science can tell us the "know-how" but not the "know-why." To existential and metaphysical questions we must turn to philosophy or religion. Jesus is the answer to the equation and he is also the "Answerer!" To know Christ is to know the truth. He did not just tell us the truth but became the embodiment of truth itself.

We must be careful not to personify science and make it an idol; anything that comes between us and God is idolatry. Truth does not go against reason, but beyond it.

St. Augustine said that "deep within man there dwells the truth." However, "the big lie of the West is that there is no absolute truth"--truth with a capital T! If there is no truth as Pilate thought then there is no God by inference. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it has no scientific absurdities, and where it does say something scientific, like the water cycle, it is accurate. The French Academy of Science in 1861 said that there were 51 "facts" in the Bible that were controverted by scientific fact--today not one of those scientific facts is believed and so you see that "science is a moving train," but the Bible stays the same. It is never outdated.

Theologians (viz.  Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine of Hippo) like to say that "All truth is God's truth." All religions have an element of truth mixed in with the error. They have just enough truth to be dangerous and religion has just enough reality to vaccinate you from the real thing. Psychology has some truth and Psychiatry has part of the answer and a piece of the puzzle, but the Scripture is sufficient to solve our problems and Jesus not only has the answer but is the Answerer! Christianity is not true because it works, as Lee Strobel says, it works because it is true. TM works for some, but that doesn't mean mantras are good, we should meditate on the Word only.

We all have preconceived ideas that prevent us from being objective--in fact, total objectivity is impossible, except for God. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. says that the scientific method cannot arrive at absolute truth. (Inference is flawed) We are all prejudiced and that means "being down on what was not up on." God gives enough light to see the truth if you can accept it and are looking, but he leaves it an open question and doesn't force truth on anyone. Truth cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we would be forced to accept it. If God were proved, then He would be no greater than the mind that proved Him! One needs faith because the "supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason." (Blaise Pascal) It is said, that if a scientist is not willing to go anywhere in his quest for the truth, he will not arrive at it.

Faith is prejudiced, and we all have some bias--there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, except with God. Sir Isaac Newton said, "No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible. Theology is known as the "queen of sciences."    Science is the stepchild of Christianity itself.  The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something as a scientific fact, it is right--there are no "scientific absurdities."   And when it speaks of the rising of the sun, for example, it is merely using convention like we do. Newton wanted to reconcile science and the Bible--they are not antithetical at all.  Francis Schaeffer wrote, No Final Conflict between the two disciplines. It is said that if you think there's a contradiction, you either don't understand Christianity or science or both.

One can be a Christian scientist without committing intellectual suicide!  Theologians used to be students of science as well.  It has been said that he who thinks there is a conflict between science and the Bible understands neither.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Assurance Of Salvation

My area of expertise (quite ironically) seems to be the assurance of salvation since I have backslid so many times, I have been dogged by this issue, and have had to repent and do the first things over and go back to square one so to speak. Sometimes I have compared myself to other Christians and have been discouraged, e.g., when they say they hear God's voice audibly and I don't, I think something is wrong, but later God reassures me.

If you just go by feelings it seems like I have been saved many times over, but that is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that if you could lose your salvation, you cannot regain it (See Heb. 6:1-9). God wants you to stand on the promises of God and "rely" on His Word, not go by experience or feeling. We do not walk in the "glow" of some mountaintop experience or cling to the memory of some emotional or ecstatic encounter, we learn to have faith that is tested and proven.  God isn't impressed with feelings as much as by faith!

I know the best assurance is that which comes from a holy and obedient life per Is. 32:17 which says, "The fruit of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance." Disobedience and consequent chastisement take away ones feeling of the joy of salvation and one may doubt his position in Christ.

My assurance comes from John 5:24, which says that He who comes to Christ will in no wise be cast out--that's my spiritual birth-certificate!  God said it in His Word, I believe it in my heart, that settles it in my mind!   No one is ever lost in the shuffle due to the Golden Chain of Redemption in Rom. 8:29-30.   Soli Deo Gloria!