Why Is There Affliction?

A word of introduction: No religion has a complete and definitive solution or raison d'etre for suffering and adversity; God never explains Himself to Job, but just reveals Himself. (Without adversity, there wouldn't be any faith or character, either.) Buddhists claim to have an answer that we are all an island and deserve what we get from "karma" and must work off via the noble eightfold path. They say we should use our own bootstraps and work off our own "karma;" we aren't each other's keeper. (Buddhists believe in the eightfold path of enlightenment which is the middle way between the extremes of asceticism and sensuality.) The logical conclusion is that suffering is our own "karma" (we deserve it) because everyone is an island. However, we are our brother's keeper and we are members one of another.

Charlie Riggs of the Billy Graham team tells the anecdote of a master sculptor chipping away at a piece of marble. A passer-by asks what he is making: "A horse!" "Well, how can you get a horse out of that?" The sculptor says, "I just chip away everything that doesn't look like a horse." It is the same with us. God is pruning us to see His own image or icon (the imago Dei) in us. We are a work in progress. You've probably seen the acrostic PBPGIFWMY which means, "Please be patient, God isn't finished with me yet." Yes, sufferings, trials, temptations, afflictions, and discipline or chastisement, and adversity inevitably come to all believers (according to Riggs). Remember, Christ didn't even exempt Himself from them. He doesn't expect any more out of us than what He endured.

Isa. 48:10 says, "Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. Did you know that God's Word is refined seven times like silver? Every time it is refined more dross or impurities are removed. When the laborer sees himself in the silver he is done; so when God sees Jesus in us. If the heat is too hot or it is in the furnace too long the silver will be ruined. We are like clay in God's hands, He is the potter. The same sun melts the butter and hardens the clay. It is only when we go through affliction do we find out what we are made of. "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all." "When you pass through the waters I will be with you...when you walk through fire, you will not be burned" (Psa. 34:19; Isa. 43:2).

Lee Strobel quotes Corrie ten Boom: "No matter how deep our darkness, He is deeper still." Suffering is an argument against God, but it is a cheap, inadequate explanation and actually proves God more than disproves Him. Case in point: Objective evaluation of rightness and wrongness is an appeal to a higher authority, i.e. God. Strobel also says that suffering is just as likely to sow agnosticism as faith, everyone acts or reacts differently. It is the highest honor to suffer for Christ; in fact, He left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Remember, if you don't suffer to succeed, it is because others have; if you do suffer to succeed, it is so that others won't.

The BIG question since the days of Job has been, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Actually, there are no good people if you think about it; also, "Why do good things happen to bad people?" Scripture says that even Jesus learned obedience through suffering--He didn't exempt Himself. Suffering is a privilege as Paul wrote, "For it has been granted unto you on behalf of Christ...to suffer for Him." Suffering is a calling: "I want to know Christ...and the fellowship of His sufferings." Paul was proud that he bore the markings of suffering for Christ.

Finally, God comforts us in our affliction so that we can be a blessing to others in the same predicament (2 Cor. 1:3-4). HE IS THE GOD OF ALL COMFORT. Remember, we are members one of another, and if on member suffers, all do. Jesus learned obedience by what he suffered. I will close with a famous quote by C. S. Lewis: "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains...It is God's megaphone in a deaf world."    Soli Deo Gloria!

Debating The Atonement?

Is it necessary to quarrel about the Atonement--that is, its extent, purpose, or design? Some of the problems are due to mere semantics and definitions. Some very conservative Calvinist theologians consider this a litmus test of orthodoxy. Today we have what is called four-point Calvinists. They do not adhere to or affirm the L of the acrostic TULIP, I mean the doctrine of the limited atonement or particular or definite redemption. They do not like to be called Arminians, who were declared heretics at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Their formulation was that the Atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some. They believe that Christ died for Judas' sins.

One has to realize that we contribute nothing to our salvation. God quickens faith within us and thus faith is a gift. It is not a meritorious work as Rome believes. Salvation is either of God, of God and man, or of man. Jonah 2:9 says, "Salvation is of the Lord." Remember that Jesus said, "It is finished."

He was not making salvation possible for all, but assured for the sheep, for whom He laid down His life. I've heard it said that Christ died for all indiscriminately, but we have to receive it. If Christ was punished for Judas' sins, then why should he suffer in hell? Arminians believe the Atonement made salvation possible for all, but certain for none. It makes it both indefinite and unlimited. In what way does the Atonement avail for the non-elect?

Salvation is for everyone in the sense that if they believe they are saved--but God decides who believes. We believe because of our election; we are not elected because we believe. Acts 13:48 says, "As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." N.B. that the appointment or election came first (c.f. 2 Thess. 2:13). Is. 53:12 says, "...He bore the sin of many..." (note that it could have said "all" but named the sub-set).

It is not necessary to understand the Atonement to be saved. We are not saved by our theory of the Atonement either. We must pray as if everything depends on God, and witness as if everything depends on us. We should not let our doctrine hinder our witness--keep it simple. Some doctrine is not meant for babies in Christ. May we get our "meat in due season."

Logic will make it clear that Christ laid down His life for His "friends." He only prayed for believers in His great intercessory prayer in John 17:9:  "I pray for them, I pray not for the world."  God knows ahead of time who will believe. There is a legal principle of double jeopardy. God predestines the salvation of His elect. Universal atonement leads to a conclusion of Universalism (redemption and salvation for all).   1 John 2:2 leads to this conclusion if we use that as a proof text--"And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." (Here the world refers to Jews and Gentiles included who believe, not everyone indiscriminately.)

Atonement means reconciliation. All are not saved or reconciled, ergo the Atonement has to be definite or limited to the elect. It is good news that no one who believes will be left out. The Arminian makes possible the salvation of all, but certain for none--it could've been that no one got saved! Au contraire, Jesus said, "It is finished." The plea is that Jesus died to offer you salvation contingent upon faith.  NB:  We are not saved by our theory or view of the atonement!  Let me finish with stating that we are never saved by our theory of the atonement, and it is the immature believer who balks at learning the things of God in depth.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Loving Jesus

Every believer will tell you that he loves Jesus--in fact, there is a biblical curse on everyone who doesn't. But how do you know that you love Jesus? You will love the brethren and your brother whom you can see. Anyone who looks down or despises his brother or hates him cannot love Jesus. If we love the Lord we will love the Word. We will also have a burden for souls.

To know Him is to love Him and our love grows as we grow in Christ. Our goal is to fall in love with Jesus. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Obedience is the key and the test. Loving Jesus without knowing Him would be mere sentimentality and that is not the goal. Loving Jesus is the ultimate response to knowing Him. We must turn our knowledge about Him to knowledge of Him by applying the Word and being a doer of the Word.  As Richard of Chichester said, "To know Him more clearly, to follow Him more nearly, to love Him more dearly"this goal is ours to aim for.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Knowing The Holy Spirit

Knowing the Holy Spirit is not an academic issue, or up to one's mental gymnastics or acumen, or facts to be memorized. One can ace the seminary course on the subject and still not know Him. And to not know Him is to not know God the Father or Jesus. God gives us discernment of spirits and tells us to test the spirits. Only with experience do we learn not to grieve the Spirit or to quench His fire.

He is the conviction, the enabler, the teacher, the guide and comforter (we can sense His illuminating power every time we read the Word). Are you sensitive to when the Spirit is speaking to your heart? Some Christians readily go from talking about something the Spirit blesses to a worldly subject. Like Jesus rebuked Peter telling him that he minded earthly things. If we would rather talk about our favorite football team than things spiritual or about Jesus, we must scarcely know the Holy Spirit, though there is a time and place for this.

In sum, knowing the Spirit cannot be taught; but it is learned by experiencing Him. Like God's love--once you've experienced it, you want to pass it on!

Finally, it is not how much you know about the Spirit, but whether you experience Him and have this experiential knowledge. A little knowledge of God is better than a whole lot about Him. We must grow in the knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ through the Spirit through His gifts and fruit. As we learn to be led by the Holy Spirit we know Him better.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Limited Healing?

In the Western world, we first go to the doctor when we are ill and our security depends on our health insurance. But in the third world, they are forced to believe in God for miracles because there are no medical doctors. They have revivals in Nigeria and Argentina, for instance, where people instantly get healed of whatever ails them (teeth replaced, limbs restored, weight loss, eyes healed, leprosy cleansed, etc.). I have heard of instances where the dead are raised (in the name of Jesus, of course).

There is a tendency to be skeptical and incredulous, as it doesn't seem plausible to some. This is not wrong per se, but God rewards faith. Jesus said, "Nothing shall be impossible unto you." Also, he said, "Be it done unto you according to your faith." And, "If you ask anything believing..." He also said that we shall do greater things. You can't limit God or put Him in a box.

"By His stripes we are healed," said Isaiah and Peter. "Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows." (Is. 53:4) I've heard it said that the reason we don't see more miracles in the Western world is that we have HMOs. Asa was guilty of seeking the help of physicians instead of seeking the Lord for healing. God is no man's debtor and doesn't have to heal us, he may choose to leave us with a cross to bear like Paul's thorn in the flesh. Ps. 103 says that He heals all our diseases. There is no disease that God cannot heal.

However, Paul and Peter couldn't heal everyone. Look at Joni Eareckson Tada, the quadriplegic who isn't healed, yet God has used her to His glory. These cases are for God' will and glory. One reason we don't get healed is that we are concealing some sin. James 5:16 says, "Confess your sins one to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed..." There is also a place for the anointing of oil (James 5:14).

To say that God is only interested in our spirit is nonsense. 3 John 2 says, "Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul."  Soli Deo Gloria!

What About The Evidence?

Every good scientist knows that the lack of evidence does not mean the evidence or proof of a lack. Bertrand Russell (an atheist who wrote a book, Why I Am Not a Christian), was asked what he would say to God if he were wrong, after all. He would retort: "Why didn't You give us more evidence?" The great legal expert, erstwhile atheist, and Harvard professor, Simon Greenleaf was challenged to consider the evidence. He became a believer! There is evidence (not proof though) against God. God has not coerced belief but has left it an open question. (If faith wasn't required, you could no more deny God than the sun.)

For instance, the problem of evil; there is no easy answer on either side--so don't claim that you have all the answers, because God requires faith ("For without faith it is impossible to please God...") and you don't need all the answers to take the leap of faith. However, an honest scientist must be willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads, leaving his presuppositions behind. However, there is NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL OBJECTIVITY WITH MANKIND.

Lee Strobel calls Christian belief a "properly basic" belief because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Christ can be experienced. N.B. that Einstein was not an atheist, but even philosophized about Him: "God doesn't play dice with the universe." Another famous scientist, Blaise Pascal said, "...earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence a hidden God." The Bible says, "O that I knew where I might find Him" (Job 23:3). God wants to be found, but not by triflers, he promises in Jer. 29:13 that if we seek with our whole heart we will find Him. God's pet peeve with man is that he doesn't seek. We must admit with Isa. 65:1 that God is found by those that aren't looking for Him. Actually, He gets the credit. He found us--we didn't find Him!

But remember that faith is a choice. If someone says to prove God exists, tell him to prove He doesn't. Either way, it takes faith; there are no laboratory conditions for God! God wills that if you want to deny Him you can. One philosopher has said, "If there is no God, why is there so much good? And if there is a God, why so much evil? You have the ability to explain away God if you so desire. God has given us just enough light to have faith, and just enough darkness to deny Him if we want to. "But men loved darkness rather than light..." Where there's the will God will bless as He says in John 7:17, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God...."   Remember this from Isaiah: "Truly You are God who hide Yourself... (Is. 45:15).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Doctrine That Important?

Everyone has a doctrine, it is just a matter of how accurate it is. Jesus' doctrine was right but the Pharisees hated His doctrine, though they loved doctrine per se.  Doctrine separates Christians when they make it the end and not the means. The purpose of all doctrine is to lead us to a fuller understanding and relationship with God--not a reason to feel puffed up with knowledge. One can know very little doctrine and be very good at applying what he knows and be a very good Christian.

The disciples were "dedicated to the apostle's teaching [or doctrine]" (Acts 2:42). In other words, knowing doctrine is a means to an end, and not the objective itself (what we apply is more important than what we believe in theory). Some people like to divide Christians into two camps, for instance: Arminian vs. Calvinist. Both can be very fundamental, evangelical and conservative in their beliefs. In fact, there are some Arminians that know their God far better than some Calvinists.

It is not a good thing to get into the habit of labeling fellow believers, which can lead to judging. You can say, "I am a Calvinist!" But I can retort, "I am a Christian!" In summary, God isn't going to ask you what party you were a member of or how you interpreted the atonement--but of your love for and trust in Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into medieval English, not modern English though). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine (common Greek), Aramaic, or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation). The "Englishisms" in the KJV is hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms, or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Did God Die?

I will use a syllogistic proof (a major premise, a minor premise, leading to a conclusion) that shows God as dying on our behalf on the cross: Christ is God; Christ died on the cross; hence God died on the cross. Now some may balk at this kind of logic and seem to think that it is impossible for God to die; but what is here, but separation from the Father and Holy Spirit, in a cry of dereliction, taking on the sins of the world until Christ pronounces tetelestai or "it is finished," [a done deal!].

You have to look at your definitions of God and to see the logic. The sky went black from 12 noon till three o'clock that day as the Father could not look on the Son bearing our sins. Since God is infinite, we cannot put Him in a box and confine Him to logic that makes His Godhead understandable to us, but as the song goes, "Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God, should'st die for me!" Lee Strobel refers to "Deicide" as what we did to Christ on the cross.

If Jesus was only a man the sacrifice would be imperfect and insufficient for us. The triune God works together to accomplish a unified plan and goal. The Father purposes and plans, the Son implements and carries through, the Holy Spirit applies and completes the plan. Jesus experienced separation from the Father and in this sense, He died and wondered about His being forsaken. This is a paradox because in one sense God died for us and in another sense, God judged sin in Jesus as our substitute and is very much alive and working to preserve the cosmos.

As long as you define your terms you can make this statement. God is three persons in one essence. Jesus is two natures in one person, neither separated, confused, mixed, nor divided. He is not a deified man nor a humanized god or theanthropos, but the infinite God-Man, perfect God, perfect Man, very God of very God, and very man of very man (not a God in human disguise, nor a man with divine attributes). Jesus' two natures can be distinguished, but not separated; due to the hypostatic union.

In the final analysis, it depends on how you define death.  Christ's Spirit was indeed separated from His body and when we die our spirits are separated from our bodies too.  Christ never was separated in His divine nature from the Trinity but lost fellowship during His passion on the cross.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You Seeker-Sensitive?

Some hard-line conservative preachers don't want the churches to be seeker-sensitive. But it is to the church that the keys have been given, and the door has been opened. The church is, of course, all believers; but when they gather together they have special anointing and Spirit-power. It should be so Spirit-led that a nonbeliever could come into the service and proclaim, "O my! The Lord is present here!" We need to knock some people out of their comfort zones with lightning bolts; prophetic utterances always make some people uncomfortable--we don't want ear-tickling preachers, who only say what people want to hear, and stay away from controversy. (To avoid controversy, is to avoid Christ Himself [Read John Stott's book, Christ, the Controversialist]).

Many preachers are against pragmatic services (doing what is expedient to meet their needs--if it works it's true!) and tend to just view what they see as biblical means to the end as ordained of God (as diehard traditionalists), and God will only bless that. By pragmatic, I don't mean that the end justifies the means, or that it is just practical, or that one doesn't look at the principles (are they really biblical or tradition?) involved, but the result--pragmatics is much more common in politics--and results matter. (Billy Graham calls adjusting our outreach to the seekers as "contextualization.") I have heard it said by missiologists that the best theories are the ones that work.

What I'm saying, is that something is not working in the American paradigm of singing, liturgy, sermon, prayer, communion, et cetera-which is the European paradigm transplanted here. We need to be more inclusive and not so exclusive, like that we are the only church in town and we are right and the others are wrong. This Bible-club mentality is easily spotted: No one church has a corner on the market of truth! However, Chuck Swindoll says to not drink of just one fountain, or you will lose your discernment, so don't give the impression of being an exclusive club or "cult."

If they like us, they will like Jesus--we are the mirrors of God's glory, and they either see Jesus in us or they don't--people aren't that blind. "That they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven." I'm not saying we need to open a coffee shop in every church to be more social, or to have plays or concerts or testimonies, or special speakers to attract a crowd. What I am saying is what Paul said in 1 Cor. 9:22, "I have become all things to all people...."

Everyone can reach someone and if you are in your right evangelical outreach, God will bless your witness. Just let the spiritual gifts be manifested, and let people discover their place and God-given talents and gifts. There should be a place for everyone to serve and/or grow. We need to be a little more utilitarian, which means doing what is useful--not the greatest good for the greatest number, what some think and give it a bad reputation.

A person should be able to come to a church with the hope of getting saved if nothing else; and the door should be open. The primary foci are to edify the body and to worship the Lord, but we can't forget those who are thirsty and are coming to the fountain for a drink. Even though the mission field is primarily in the highways and byways of our towns and in our homes and workplaces, the opportunity is wide-open at the church and no one should ever leave, without having had that chance at salvation. Rom. 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word."

So, we cannot abandon that format nor de-emphasize it. Paul urged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist! We should all strive to be churches like Philadelphia, which wasn't reprimanded for anything but had an open door. (To be just content to be doctrinally sound at the expense of love or life is not good. We don't want to be like the church of Sardis that had a reputation that is was alive, but it was dead.

The guest should say, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the House of the Lord!'" (Ps. 122:1). "A day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere" (Ps.84:10). Remember, though, that a church service is not a performance or a show or a place to get entertained, but a meeting of the body of Christ. But the person who says he didn't get anything out of the worship service went for the wrong reason. The right attitude is Ps. 84:2 which says, "I longed and even yearned for the courts of the Lord."

We should be seeker-sensitive even when taking offering (which is a part of the worship) by announcing that visitors shouldn't feel obliged to give, that they are our guests. And Jesus said His house would be a house of prayer, and prayer should be emphasized even if the guest feels uncomfortable--there are things we don't compromise on. Remember Augustine said, "In essentials [nonnegotiables] unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!