Evangelism Questions

My response to a friend witnessing to an unbeliever who uses evolution as his issue to reject the Gospel. I thought that this might be of some assistance to others.

To My Good Friend,

Yes, I think that is all good.

I would be more than willing to talk to him. Most Christians around the world hold to the evolutionary theory. Even those Christians who do not generally hold to that theory, most of them do not think that it necessarily conflicts with the Christian Faith.

However, I suspect that he is only holding on to the science-faith conflict because he believes it is his strongest rebuff. If the science-faith conflict was removed as an issue, he would probably hold on to another issue that he thinks would then be his strongest rebuff. I honestly do not think that reasoning with him would help; I think it would only be a distraction and harden his thoughts.

I think you have the right idea, though: go to his heart, go to where he is, and go to his relationship with God.

He says, “I do not believe in God” or “I do not know if there is a God.”

Here are some possible replies:

- “Well, let me ask this question: do you want there to be a God?”

-“How do you think your life would change if God did exist?”

-“What does it mean to you that there isn't a God?”

-“Why do you think people ‘evangelize’?”

-“If what people are telling you is true, how would that affect your life?”

and

-“Why not ask God if he exists?”

Ask him to ask God on his own to help him to believe. Then tell him to wait patiently. I believe God will help him to believe.

"Keep on asking, and you will be given what you ask for. Keep on looking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks. You parents-if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not! If you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.” (Matthew 7:7-11 (also Luke 11:9-13))

I, myself, have doubts from time to time, but I have learned to go to God with those doubts.

“Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” (Mar 9:24)

As you said, ask him to think about these questions. Ask him to ask God. Tell him to do so and say, “What harm could it do?” Remind him not to expect a “burning-bush,” but just tell him to think about it and ask God. “Be patient and see what happens.”

And, of course: Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Tell him to read the Gospels (particularly Luke). Tell him that Christians believe that God is like Jesus. Tell him that if he wants to know what God is like, then look at Jesus.

I hope this will be some help. I will pray.

God Bless

PC

A Discussion On The Atonement

This is an excerpt from a discussion I am having with a friend about penal substitutionary atonement.

You completely missed the point. You admitted to accepting anyone's confession. Yet when you recieve them, you are thinking the words mean what you have defined them to mean. A Mormon or JW would tell you exactly what you wanted to hear, and if you knew not their background or semantics, you would put your arm around them and call them brother. Isn't that what Promise Keepers does? Yet, all the while, they are still in their sin, believing a perverted gospel that is no gospel at all...but it was good enough for you. Get my point? CONTEND for the faith.

If anyone claims to be a believer and that is the extent of the knowledge that I have to go on, then I take them at their word. However, if they are not believers then time will certainly tell. They may bear no fruit or speak theology that suggests they may not be in a saving relationship with God. Yes, a Mormon or Jew might tell me exactly what I want to hear but so will a Southern Baptist. But any Southern Baptist who tells me that they are a believer I accept that confession. But if their fruit or theology leads me to suspect they are not saved then I will question their salvation as sure as I would anyone else. I would expect others to do the same for me.

I have know Southern Baptist, adult members of churches, who had very good theological beliefs but their life did not bear fruit but soon they realized they were not saved (they thought they were) and repented and came to God.

I have known Mormons who grew up in the religion and had a conversion experience which led them to a saving relationship with God through Christ. They remained attached to the Mormon church for a few years before God finally led them out of that community and to a more orthodox tradition.

I know of Jews who are followers of Jesus. They believe He is the Messiah, Son of God and no one can come to the Father except through Him. They hold an orthodox faith. However, they do not refer to themselves as “Christians”. They call themselves “followers of Jesus”. They do so because the term “Christian” is such a loaded word among Jews that they are able to more effectively witness, convert and disciple under the moniker “follow of Jesus”.

I always think words mean what I think they mean or what they are generally meant by a particular group that uses those words. That’s the point of words.

Someone who confesses Christ to me does not have to prove to me that they are sincere in that confession. They only have to prove otherwise, which those who are not truly believers will do with time.

I really do not know anything about Promise Keepers.

On missions, you made the point earlier that man didn't have to know Christ to be saved. -->

"I think God can save without people ever having ever heard of Jesus Christ. However, no one can hear of Jesus Christ, reject Him, and then be saved."

IT sounds as if people may have a better chance if they don't hear of Him, then they can't "reject" Him. Many, many communities hear of Him and reject Him. However, they already had rejected Him. You state "more easily accept Him." That is most interesting.

No, people have a better chance if they do hear Him than if they do not. Jesus presents the Father, God, more than anything else. They can have the prophets (Scripture) and the prophets (Scripture) will lead them to God but not as effectively as Christ. The Prophets wrote and spoke the Word but they were not the Word. Jesus didn’t simply speak the Word, He enacted the Word. He is the Word. He is perfect representation of God, the Son who testifies the Father (John 5:37; 8:28; 12:49; 14:9; 15:5; 16:25)

Again, no one who has faith in the Father will reject the Son. No one who has faith in the Son rejects the Father. Those who reject the Son have rejected the Father. Those who have faith in the Father before the have knowledge of the Son, will accept the Son because they accept the Father. (John 15:24; 16:3)

The ancients (both Jews and non-Jews) were able to be saved by God even though they lived and died before the incarnation of Christ and before ever having any knowledge of Jesus.

Since the incarnation of Christ, the ministry of Jesus and the inauguration of the kingdom and the Church, the spread of the gospel has tremendously escalated the salvation of the world. That was what so amazed the Jewish Christians: “God has given to the Gentiles repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). Of course, God had always given the Gentiles and the Jews such repentance (see Jonah). Several reasons for this:

1) Jesus proclaims the Father in a way that no one else can

2) Satan has fallen and has been bound to a greater extent than ever before allowing the Gospel to be preached to Gentiles like never before. This has occurred because of Jesus and the gospel message of the kingdom of God.

3) Believers are now empowered by the Holy Spirit in a way that they have never have been before. The Spirit of God used to come and go on prophets and such. With Jesus, the Spirit rested upon Him and remained. Because we as believers are a part of the body of Christ, we partake of the Spirit through our identification with Christ. The Spirit gives us knowledge, power and authority to further the kingdom. Most importantly, the Spirit of God testifies of Christ. The Spirit points to Christ. The Spirit of God points to Christ because the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Jesus. Thus the Spirit brings people to salvation to God like never before because it points to Christ who is the means of salvation.

Let me ask you this, you can answer to yourself: can God forgive someone who commits "blasphemy against the Spirit" (Matt 12:31). If not, why not? Can He not do anything? IF so, why the decree? God has ordained that this be the case. He decided in eternity past that this sin would not be forgiven, and was pleased to restrict Himself to this decree. He chose to set this standard, and must abide by it, because otherwise it would be imperfect. God was also pleased to ordain that belief in and confession of Jesus Christ is the means by which a person is saved. Yet, you don't think this is fair? Is it not fair if one never hears of Christ and dies and goes to hell? Did not God decree that this was His means of salvation? Did not Jesus Himself declare that if you do not have Him, you don't even have the Father, rendering all Jews (Judaism) and Muslims godless to this day?


See above. Jesus has not always been incarnated and those who lived before Jesus were still saved. How were they saved without knowledge of Christ? The answer is that Christ has a corporate nature and men are redeemed when they are identified with Christ. God directly saves Christ, men are indirectly saved by God when they are connected to Christ. This is why Christ is the means by which man is saved. It is Christ’s perfect love and devotion to God that He recognizes and rewards. All believers in God are then a part of Christ’s body. This includes all those believers since Christ who have knowledge of Christ and accept Him and those believers before Christ who did not reject Him because they did not ever know of Him. However, every believer who lived before Christ would have accepted Christ if given that knowledge. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David would have accepted Christ because they believed in God.

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (John14:7)

The disciples already believe in God, now they are learning to believe in Jesus.

“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” (John14:7)

A believer in God will recognize Jesus as such; a non-believer will not. A believer in God when confronted with Christ will see in His words, His works and in His person that He is of God. Anyone confronted by Christ who rejects Him also rejects God and was never a believer to begin with (John 5:23; 8:19, 42; 10:30, 37-38).

You referenced the sin of “blasphemy against the Spirit" (Matt 12:31). What is that sin? In this passage it is attributing to the Satan the work of the Holy Spirit. They can mischaracterize the Son of Man (Jesus), but to mischaracterize the Spirit (the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus as the Christ, the one anointed by the Spirit) is ultimately unforgivable. By rejecting the work of Christ, one is blaspheming the Holy Spirit which is doing the work of God, thus one is rejecting the Spirit of God and thus rejecting God.

No one can come to God except by Jesus Christ. No one. There is no other way. However, this way can be either conscious or unconscious on the part of the believer in God. Before one has knowledge of Christ they are unconscious of this connection. After they have knowledge of Christ they are conscious. Let me give you an example that might help: conservative evangelical Christians believe that a fetus or infant is a person and loved by God. We also believe that a fetus or infant that dies (either by abortion or accident) will be saved by God, even though that child never has conscious knowledge of Christ. This is similar to the situation of those who accepted God prior to the incarnation.

Perhaps you do not understand my use of terminology. When I say “believer in God” I am not referring to intellectual assent to the idea that God exists or that “Christ saves”. By “believer in God” I refer to the Scriptural of “belief” that refers to “trust”, “love” and “saving faith” in God. Jews, Muslims and pagans who intellectually believe that God exists but reject Christ do not “believe in God” and are not “believers”.

On penal substitutionary atonement, circ, you have formulated three points that have no Scriptural basis. They are all ideas you yourself generated.

These are not my ideas. These are ideas found in Scripture because they are taught by Scripture. They certainly are not ideas I discovered in Scripture. They’ve been taught for hundreds and thousands of years. Believe me: penal substitutionary atonement as it is espoused by Southern Baptists and other evangelicals only goes back to Calvin. His was a modified version of Aquinas, The Roman Catholics generally hold to penal substitutionary atonement (like Mel Gibson) as taught by Aquinas. Aquinas developed his view from Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory. This Anselm view is the one which most closely resembles mine, though I make modifications of it here and there to more conform to Scripture. Believe me: my view is very conservative and orthodox. It is older than penal substitutionary atonement by several hundred years. Liberals and most moderates completely reject my view as being too medieval and barbaric. They suggest that the idea that God’s wrath had to be abated is nonsense. I think there wrong but I do agree with them that Christ was not receiving any punishment on the cross. Of course, for me, the atonement of Christ began at his entry into the world at conception and ended on the cross: His whole life was the atonement.

Knowledge puffs up, and is dangerous unchecked.

1 Corinthians 8:1

I’ve checked all my knowledge by Scripture. I have done so because all of this knowledge comes from Scripture. I hold to these beliefs because I believe it is taught in Scripture.

Look at this next verse:

“And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:1)

This verse is the basis for my entire understanding of attaining knowledge. One begins to learn and gain knowledge when one admits he doesn’t know anything, when one admits he is ignorant. When one becomes humble and seeks God to remove pride and fears God education can begin and one can achieve knowledge.

“The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7)

This same idea is expressed in the thoughts of Socrates and Nicholaus of Cusa.
Pride is the enemy of knowledge. All sin comes from pride and those with pride can never truly learn.

These views are the result of my pursuit of humility.

That sacrifices do not receive punishment- this is terribly shortsighted! The very death of the animal is punishment! Why? For sin of man- that deserved death. But did man receive the punishment of death? No! the animal did.

Man does receive the punishment of death for his sin (see Genesis 3). The reward for faith is resurrection, typified by and thru Jesus Christ.

The animals receive punishment? Animals do not sin and can not gain eternal life. There death means nothing to God because it eventually dies anyway and remains dead. No, the purpose of a sacrificial offering is not punishment for the sinner but the devotion of the sinner who comes to God in repentance and love. And not all sacrifices have to be because of sin; they can be simply an expression of thanks. Hence, the Thanksgiving offering. For example, Noah, having left the ark and being thankful to God,

“took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” (Gen 8:20)

Now look at God’s response:

“And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.” (Gen 8:21)

The “Lord smelled the sweet savor” is representative of His being pleased of Noah’s thanks. Noah was not offering a sacrifice because he had sinned but because he was thankful.

This idea is given by Paul in Ephesians:

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” (Eph 5:2; see this same idea conveyed by Paul in 2 Cor 2:15 and Phl 4:18)

This is why sacrificial offerings are pointless without love and devotion to God (1 Sam 1:11-20; Is 1:11-20; Mic 6:8; Mar 12:33).

This is why Paul tells us to offer our bodies up as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1; see also Pet 2:5).

That is why grain and other non-living things can be offered up as a sacrifice (Lev 2; 1 Kings 4:22; Judges 6:17-24).

This is why we are called to make the same sacrifice as Jesus Christ (however imperfect it may be), by denying ourselves (Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mar 8:34; 10:21; Lk 14:27; Phl 2:8). The cross is not about receiving punishment for sins but showing love and obedience to God and denying one’s self unto death. Because those who are obedient unto death are given life.


This is why Paul talks about being crucified in Christ:

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20)

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin … Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom 6:6, 8).

We are crucified with and in Christ. We are not receiving a punishment with Christ. We are a part of Christ’s self-giving devotional love to God. God rewards Christ for this devotion and raises Him up and us with Him. It is a pleasing aroma to God, a sweet savoring smell.

Again, animal sacrifice is not about punishing an animal to remove guilt from the sinner. The sinner is still guilty, just forgiven. He’s forgiven not because something else receives the punishment but because the sinner has shown his repentance by sacrificing, by offering, by destroying something that is of worth. This is why different classes with different incomes were required to sacrifice different animals of different values. The rich would sacrifice oxen and bulls, the poor would sacrifice doves and such. Those in the middle would sacrifice sheep. If it were all about punishment then it wouldn’t matter what worth of animal it was; it was still be punished. This is why the animal was not simply killed but completely burnt up so it could not be then used. The point was that the person had given something up in devotion to God. This is why it was not simply good enough to simply kill the animal in the sacrifice, the person making the sacrifice had to have his heart right (Is 1:11-20; Mic 6:8; Mar 12:33). If it were all about punishment then it would not matter if the person’s heart was right or not.


If sin does not have to be met with judgement b/c God is righteous, then what is the basis for hell?

All sin deserves punishment. Unrepentant sin is met with judgment. Those who sin but repent avoid punishment (see Jonah 3). That’s grace; it’s the running theme of the Bible. The prodigal son repented and was not punished, much to the elder brother’s disdain (see a similar reaction by Jonah to Nineveh’s repentance in Jonah 3-4). If repenting sinners were met with punishment then no one could be saved.

By your definition, rejecting Christ would deserve punishment- and that's the only sin worhty of punishment. Therefore, now I see why you think men can escape judgment if they never reject Christ, yet never confess Him.

See above. See the Old Testament.

On your book, isn't that a bit arrogant? That your journey will be helpful? What if it is harmful? Don't you fear God enough to let Him work through students rather than view yourself as some kind of "vehicle" to transmit to them the "real" truth?

Why would it be arrogant to want to write a book that people would find helpful? Why would it be harmful? It’s true. It’s in Scripture. I can point to it. I can prove it. These views have not hurt me. Quite the opposite. My spiritual life, discipleship, Christ-likeness, and closeness to God have grown and improved because of these views. Now I am not saying anyone who adopts my views will grow spiritually (certainly there are many who hold me views and are not spiritually healthy) and I am certainly not saying that anyone who doesn’t believe as I do won’t grow spiritually (there are fundamentalists I know with Christ-likeness I may never have). But, in my case, these beliefs have helped me and I want to help others. I am God’s servant just as you are. We would be in serious trouble if God was not using us to help others. All believers are called by God to proclaim the gospel and make disciples. That is the purpose of our being elected. That is what I am doing. To not tell people what I have been taught by God and have experienced in my relationship with Him would be to hide it under a bushel.

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

Penal substitionary atonement was a refinement (by Aquinas and Calvin) of the satisfaction theory of the atonement doctrine as developed by Anslem. Anselm’s theory was a reconfiguration (and rejection) of the ransom theory of atonement which had prevailed in the Church from the Patristics on down. Certainly Anselm’s theory was a great improvement on the understanding of the doctrine, but I do think that its developments by Aquinas and Calvin (who both advocated the idea that Christ paid the penalty for man’s sin and bore God’s wrath) is correct. It is an idea that goes no further back than the 13th century. The fact that it is a relatively recent doctrine does not make it wrong but it should give us pause. Inerrancy is a very recent doctrine but I think it is correct.

Christ did atone for Man’s sin. Christ was the substitute in our place. Indeed, Jesus did satisfy the wrath of God. But Christ did not in any way pay a penalty for us or receive God’s wrath. A completely false idea.

1) Scripture does not teach this anywhere. It is completely absent from the teachings of Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers. Again, it is a very recent formulation of the atonement doctrine. It does not have historical validity.

2) It completely misses the meaning of sacrifice. In a sacrifice, the sacrifice itself does not receive any punishment. God does not punish the sacrifice for the sins of the one who sacrifices. In a sacrifice, the one who sacrifices is expressing his love and devotion to God by sacrificing (destroying) something that is of value to the sacrificer. If we read the Old Testament, this is always the purpose and meaning of a sacrifice. No where are we given the idea that the sacrifice is punished instead of the sacrificer. This is why different sacrifices were required for different social statuses. It was deemed more of an act of devotion for a rich man to sacrifice an ox than a dove. For a poor person, a dove could be a big sacrifice. This is why God often dismisses OT sacrifices when they are not done out of devotion. He says through his prophets that sacrifices without devotion are sickening to Him. Such sacrifices not only mean nothing but show general contempt for God who they believe will be satisfied by simply a sacrifice and not devotion.

Thus the atoning work of Jesus was a sacrifice to God not because He received our punishment in our stead, but because He showed absolute devotion to God in His life and unto death. God saw this devotion and rewarded Jesus with resurrection and eternal life. Man as sinners fall short of the devotion and sacrifice necessary to receive such a reward. Therefore, God the Son became incarnated as Jesus to be identified with Man, to make reconciliation between God and Man due to Man’s break with God. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and Man. Jesus lived the perfect life as a Man and devoted Himself to God sacrificing Himself to God. He was then able to provide atonement for our sins because, though we can never make such a sacrifice, those who are identified with Christ is then seen by God through Jesus. God looks at the believer and sees us through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus and then gives us the reward that He gives to Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ life and death were substitutionary in that He lived in died in our place because we could not do so ourselves with the same effect. However, it was not substitutionary in two ways: 1) we as believers are a part of the body of Christ and are identified with Him and thus in a spiritual sense were on the cross with Him. Paul makes this very clear in Galatians and elsewhere. 2) We are called to follow Christ and expected to make such a sacrifice unto death (“He who would follow me must carry his cross”).

Jesus’ life and death did satisfy the wrath of God because Man sins and does not deserve to have eternal life with God. Man was created out of nothing and, though made in the image of God, rebels against God and does nothing which merits that God should continue to keep Man existing. However, Jesus, by identifying Himself with Man, acts as Man’s advocate and supplies the satisfaction required by God to give undeserving Man an eternal fellowship with Him.

Jesus did not receive a punishment. His death on the cross was not a punishment from God. His life and death were acts of love and devotion from God and to God. Jesus’ death did not repulse God; it showed how close God and Jesus were.

3) The basic idea of the penal substitionary atonement theory as developed by Aquinas and Calvin (particularly the latter) is a legal model which argues that God’s justice must be satisfied. This is quite untenable. First, even if we presume that God had to have His justice met, we still have a problem. Jesus death on the cross was the most unjust thing. He did not deserve to die, by either the standards of God or of Men. That Jesus took the punishment of Men is unjust. Justice is not met. It’s a travesty of justice. The idea that God HAS to punish someone for their sins is not a Scriptural idea. We are forgiven by grace. Grace is not justice by definition. Regardless, where is the justice for the unjust killing of Jesus? Jesus would have had to have paid the penalty for the sin of putting himself to death. And what is the punishment for sin? Death, complete and forever. Those who are not redeemed by Christ face the penalty of eternal damnation. Thus, if Christ had not redeemed us, then our penalty would have been eternal damnation. If Christ took our penalty, then that penalty would have been eternal damnation. But quite the opposite. He was resurrected.

The point of the cross was not that Jesus was punished. The complete opposite. The world thinks that it was punishment. The Jews and Gentiles saw it as punishment and evidence of God’s disfavour. It wasn’t evidence of God’s wrath; it was evidence of His love. Christ did not take our punishment; He removed the possibility that any punishment was necessary for either Him or us. Christ’s resurrection was evidence that He was not punished by God.

Therefore, penal substitionary atonement completely contradicts the whole purpose of the atonement. It is not Scriptural. It is not historical in so far as it only goes back to the 13th century. It certainly is not reasonable.

Man From Mud Thru Mammals: The Value of Man Amidst Evolutionary Theory

At those points in my week when I devote time to write my book concerning my experiences at seminary, I am occasionally struck by a new argument for a belief which I learned while at seminary.

Many believers who deny the reality of biological evolution as the method by which God creates various biological life, including men, often argue that if Man were in deed biologically descended from some non-human species this would somehow diminish the worth of Man and put into disparage the Christian belief that Man is made in the image of God.

However, this particular argument against evolution (which actually does not address the reality of the theory but only its perceived consequences) is not tenable with arguments of either Scripture or the experience and reason of confessing Christians.

1) The idea that a Man would be deemed worthless by brute origins is not an argument against evolution.

Those who hold to a less poetic view of the creation stories of Genesis 2 and 3 do not believe that Man is deemed worthless because he comes from dirt (Gen 2:7; 3:19). Yet, if they believe that Man has value even though his origins are from mud, then would man be of less value because he is from brute.

In Matthew 6:26, Jesus teaches that Man should not worry about life sustenance because God cares for the birds of the sky, so why shouldn’t he care for Man who is of greater value. Of course, Jesus refers to the greater value of Man, but he is also speaking of the value of animals. However, I have found no instance in the Bible where God shows any value to dirt. If, the anti-evolutionists were consistent in this particular argument against evolution they would make the case that Man has lesser value because he has come from dirt and not animals. Of course, Man does have value despite the fact that he comes from animals, that he comes from dust, and that he ultimately comes from nothing. The value of man is not lessened by his origins or by what he is made of. Man is given value by God and has that value because God says he has value.

2) Often the view is argued that if Man originated in some biologically different from than which he now exists, then this would prove that Man is not made in the image of God.

This is a troubling line of reasoning because it assumes the that Man is only “Man” because it conforms to a general Platonic view of what Man-ness means. By this I mean that it is assumed that anything that is less than what it generally means to be “Man” is somehow less than “Man”.

Such thinking dominated the worldview of men when it came to the value of women and people of other races. Females were said to have less value than males because males were closer to what constituted the “Man-ness”, i.e., “the image of God”. The same was said about Africans, Asians, Native Americans and even Caucasians. Such ideas have largely been eradicated within the Western world though it does continue in various non-Western cultures. Man is not less a Man if he or she is of any racial and sexual persuasions. All our considered Man.

However, such enlightened thinking is still prevalent among many of the liberals in the Western world who argue that fetuses are not Man and are thus without value simply do to the fact that they do not resemble “Man” in its generally accepted form.

I often wonder why they do not take a cue from Dr. Suess’ Horton Hear A Who: “A person is a person no matter how small.”

But such thinking is contrary to our normal experiences.

Is a man less of a Man because he or she has no legs?
Is a man less of a Man because he or she is a “little person”? (of the mini-Me variety)
Is a man less of a Man because he or she is 8 to 9 feet tall?
Is a man less of a Man because he or she has down syndrome?

Or to put it another more Scriptural way, are any of these examples considered to be less than in the image of God?
This is an important question as we deal with evolution, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning.

In terms of evolution, my view of what constitutes Man, I would categorize not just homo sapiens, but neanderthals, homo erectus and even homo habilis as constituting Man as recognized by God, i.e., “made in the image of God”.

In my view the first Man (Adam) was the first creature created by God who was able to have a personal relationship with God. I suspect that such a person was some form of early australopithecus or even an earlier creature. I imagine that (like always) God initiated contact and the creature responded in kind. I think this is what constituted the initial value of Man apart from the other mammals.

Of course, all of this is poetic imagination on my part, but it has made a good short story (for another work-in-progress apart from my book on my seminary experiences).

When An Unbeliever Can Eat Communion Elements

A reply to a very good friend concerning my reply to a very good friend concerning article on the Lord's Supper.

Here is the given scenario:

A scenario to consider...you are in a church that happens to meet in a house and they happen to practice the Lord's Supper as a meal at every weekly gathering...the "elements" are part of a meal. An unbelieving neighbor happens to come to the meeting at the house and is greeted warmly. The unbeliever is invited to eat and drink and happens to grab the bread and "juice" to eat with their meal. You have a few options: 1) You tell them to put the peice of bread and juice back, that those are only for "the church"....you offer lemonade and tortilla's instead 2) You do #1 and then expain why you think they can't eat the bread and "juice," maybe even sharing the gospel. 3) You ignore that they are eating bread and "juice" b/c it has no meaning to them b/c they aren't believers yet...you accept the fact that they are hungry and thirsty and decided that bread and juice would fill them up...when they do accept Christ, you can explain the meaning to them. 4) Another option would be to hide the bread and juice and only tell the believers of the church where you hid them that way only the believers would eat the bread and juice. ... There might be other options, what would you do?

Here is my answer:

#3 is the best option. No doubt in my mind.

You're right; for an unbeliever it has no real meaning and is just bread and juice.

Also, there were times in the NT where either Paul or Jesus performed a communion meal which included hungry people who were not believers (see John 6 and Acts 27). Such actions by them conform to their own teachings on the matter.

1) 1 Cor 8:4-13: “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

In addressing food sacrificed to idols, Paul basically states that food is food. It means nothing in of itself except as the cure for hunger. However, while food is neither one thing nor the other, Paul here is concerned about offending others.


2) Matt 12:1-8: “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungry, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”

It isn’t the bread or juice that is important but what it signifies. If someone is hungry or would like to join a meal, let them join and eat. Perhaps such fellowship will lead to their belief and recognition of what this supper really means.

I think that allowing them to eat the bread and juice causes no harm. In fact, I think it would cause harm by offending and not meeting their hunger needs - by not providing a welcome fellowship.

When Communion Is Open And When It Is Closed

A reply to a very good friend concerning my article on the Lord's Supper.

Some things to ponder...when the Corinthian passage says examine yourself...in context, what or who is this referring to? It seems that one could surmise that Paul is saying "examine yourself to see if you have waited for everyone to arrive and eat/drink" In other words, does the "examine yourself" really refer to any sin? Shouldn't we examine ourself everyday for sin? Why is it tantmount that we examine ourself for any sin before eating bread and drinking wine? It's almost like we need to be perfect before partaking. I'm wondering if Paul is just saying, "Make sure you don't chow down and get drunk before everyone can participate?" In other words, what does "unworthily" mean? Are any of us worthy of drinking the cup and eating the bread? Aren't we only made worthy b/c of what Jesus has done? And are we made worthy by thinking about any recent sin and confessing it? If an unbeliever happens to eat the bread and drink the cup, is he condemned because he did this? Or is he condemned because He does not know Christ?

I went back to re-exegete this passage about the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34) in light of your comments and with reference to church discipline (1 Cor 5).

This passage (1 Cor 11:17-34) is very difficult to understand and it did take me a long time to get my mind around the theme of the passage and then to understand all of its various parts.

Again, this passage is about communion and the coming together as a body without divisions. Of course, it is well known that the Corinthian church had numerous factions within it which Paul is addressing in this particular letter. In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is addressing problems that have occurred in communion because of these divisions and is doing so by teaching what is proper in light of the revelation of Christ.

In Corinth, sins of gluttony, drunkenness and abuse of the poor are causing divisions within the Lord’s Supper (or communion). Such divisions are bad enough in of themselves, but they are worse because such divisions are occurring during communion – THE RITUAL WHOSE VERY PURPOSE IS TO COMBAT DIVISIONS. That such church divisions are occurring during the Lord’s Supper is shocking to Paul.

It’s like the organizers of a charity for the poor using that time to rob the poor.
It’s like a bride flirting with the best man as she’s marrying the groom.
It’s like firing a secretary on Secretary Appreciation Day.
And so on …

Paul recounts the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and all that it means in light of Christ’s sacrifice. Paul even refers to His betrayal (possibly a reference to Judas who betrayed Christ and the disciples after having a fellowship meal with them).

Thus the one who attends the Lord’s Supper and does so not out of love, fellowship and COMMUNION but in a spirit of factions, divisions and EXCLUSION, this one does so in an unworthy manner.

Thus, to deny communion with other believers is, in fact, to commit the very error for which Paul seeks to address in 1 Cor 11:17-34.

Therefore, those who are unworthy to attend communion are sinners, but sinners with a specific sin: the sin of division and exclusion.

Of course, in this passage, Paul is not telling the church to exclude those who exclude; he tells each of them to examine themselves.

If the church is disciplining a divider or an excluder and that person fails to repent, then the person should not be at the Lord’s Supper to begin with. He or she should be exiled until they repent. Now if the unrepentant sinner is attending the Lord’s Supper because the church fails discipline then unrepentant sinners attending communion is the least of that church’s worries.


There are only two Scriptural reasons to justify any particular closed communion:

1) Unbelief

2) Unrepentant Sin (1 Cor 5)

Thus, to deny another believer’s access to communion because he is not a member of your local church or is not a member of your particular Christian tradition is to assert that the other believer, because he is not of your local church or Christian tradition, is either an unbeliever or a sinner of it. And because it is not our table and because it is the Lord’s Table, anyone who denies another believer’s access to communion appropriates for themselves the prerogatives of God and Christ.

So I think we need to take “unworthily” within the context of this passage. It is true that because all our sinners then no one is really worthy of communion with God in Christ. However, matters are only worsened by divisions and exclusions in the Lord’s Supper. To divide and exclude during communion is to directly and explicitly go against the explicit and direct purpose of communion.

This is why I consider it blasphemous on so many different levels to practice closed communion. Such an act is as about as bad a sacrificing a pig on the altar of the Lord in the Temple. Communion is at the very heart of the Christian Faith. It is its center. It is the most important ritual and sacrament. It is far more important than Baptism. Perhaps those from Christian traditions that understand the Lord’s Supper as symbolic presence and not transubstantiationary tend to lessen its importance. A fair criticism in my experience. In fact, even though we all know how important the Lord’s Supper is to Roman Catholics, I really do not think that they take it serious enough. I really do not believe that they properly understand it, but perhaps they do so more than Southern Baptists.

Yes, communion is symbolic but its symbolic meaning is the most important meaning that man has yet understood. Its meaning is the center of our Faith. Its meaning sums up the entirely of Scripture from Adam to Christ, from Genesis to Revelation. Its meaning sums up the problems of Man and the answer to his salvation. It sums up the two greatest commandments, it sums up the Ten Commandments, it sums up the Sermon on the Mount, and it sums up the whole of the Law. All of the Faith can be summed up in it.

This is why Paul and the other apostles took this issue so seriously. This is why meal fellowship among Jews and Gentiles was such an important issue in the early Church (Luke-Acts, Galatians, Romans, etc.). This is why Jesus time and again broke down the barriers which separated Man from Man and Man from God. Not only did He break down those barriers, He provided the mediation between such relationships: Man to Man and Man to God. Such mediation provides our salvation and is thus the symbolical meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Thus to deny another believer access to communion is to say that they are either not a believer or are sinning by not being like they are (the latter excuse was the sin of the Jews who did not want to fellowship with Gentiles because they were Gentiles).

This issue cannot be taken seriously enough.

Open vs Closed Communion, or "You're Not Worthy!"

(with thanks to Mike Meyers for the Wayne's World allusion)

It is amazing to contemplate the idea that the subjects with which Southern Baptists are now wrestling internally are subjects with which we struggled nearly a hundred years ago.

Evolution
Landmarkism
Open vs Closed Communion
Fundamentalism
Alcohol
Modes of Baptism
Charismatic Gifts

Because so many of the SBC leaders are fundamentalists (bordering on Landmarkists and moving ever so further in that direction) who see fit to force everyone in the SBC to adopt a late 19th century form of Southern Baptist Christianity (no earlier, no later), those who do not believe that Christianity was founded in a small hamlet of Tennessee in 1901 are struggling to find ways of debating SBC leaders and followers who ignorant of the last century of ecclesiastic, theological, ecumenical, and cultural development. It’s like trying to debate the issue of believer’s baptism to Roman Catholics who will not even acknowledge the Reformation of Luther.

Thus, debates that were finalized and won generations ago are now being reargued with people unaware that the debate was over before their grandparents were born. One might as well attempt to explain the sublime poetics of Shakespearean English with a Chinese fish merchant who doesn’t speak English.

Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, alcohol is banned.
Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, women are banned from pastorates.
Despite the explicit teachings of Scripture, charismatic gifts are banned.

Despite the fact that Southern Baptists rejected Landmarkism several generations ago, SBC leaders and their Baptist Historical revisionists, soul competency and all its various tenets are being rejected IN THE NAME OF BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES!

For example:

Believer’s Baptism – SBC leaders only except believers that were baptized by a pastor and a church that holds to the same mode and meaning of Baptism as themselves. Blasphemous.

Priesthood of Believers – Nope. Only the SBC leaders get to decide what is and is not Scriptural, women cannot be pastors, and closed communion is preferred. Furthermore, the Scriptural practice of private prayer language is forbidden. In essence, this means that the SBC leaders are forbidding a particular means of Scriptural communication between a believing person and his or her God. Blasphemous.

Local Church Autonomy – Nope. If a church doesn’t agree to the 2000 BFM or adopts a practice contrary to that which is deiced by the SBC leaders, then they are banned.

Separation of Church and State – Nope. The SBC wants the church involved in state politics and wants the state to makes laws to bring in the Kingdom of God.

Freedom of Religion – Are ya kidding?

It is the issue of Open vs Closed Communion that I want to focus on.

The doctrine of soul competency teaches that Man’s creation in the image of God allows him to commune with God. In the pre-fallen world, this communion does not need mediation by any priest. The post-fallen world necessitated the religious practice of a priest mediating such a relationship. However, the entrance of the God-Man Jesus Christ, who is the mediator between God and Man, enable Man to re-commune with God unfettered by priesthood because the believer becomes a part of the body of Christ and God sees the believer through Christ. The communion between God and Man is realized.

Thus the doctrine of the “priesthood of the believer” and the Reformation rejection of the Roman Catholic idea of the priestly mediator. Thus believer’s baptism.

And the Lord’s Supper?

The Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, or, as I prefer, communion is extremely important to the Christian Faith. It is a symbolic ritual which identifies the sacrifice of Jesus with ALL believers. Believer’s (ALL believers from the first Adam to the “last” Adam) are a part of the Body of Christ. Communion identifies the believer with Christ. It points to Jesus’ earthly ministry and fellowship with believers, it points to the intermediate and contemporary Spirit’s ministry and fellowship with believers, it points to the future eschatological meal where the perfect communion of God and Man will be realized.

Therefore, to prevent another believer from taking part in communion is tantamount to saying that the believer is not a believer. It is to say that his confession of faith is not true. It is to say that he is not equal to other believers. It is to say that he is not a part of the body of Christ. It is to say that he doesn’t have access to God. It is to erect a wall between one set of believers and another. It is to take upon oneself the prerogatives of God and Christ. Truly blasphemous. But how do they justify such behavior?

They often cite this particular passage as their justification:

I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

Naturally, like most of their proof texts, they get this wrong. This passage is about communion and ecumenicalism. This passage is about bringing believers together. This whole passage is about removing divisions from communion. Leave to fundamentalists to read Paul and come away with the completely opposite interpretation (They also get the first section of this completely wrong (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). I have been amazed about how many believers will read a Pauline pericope and arrive at a conclusion to its meaning which is the very point that Paul is arguing against. This is particularly true among passages dealing with women. See 1 Timothy 2 as well.)

This passage is not talking of incorrect doctrine but of sin. The one who needs to examine himself is the sinner not “right” with God and not a sinner who is “right” with God. The individual needs to examine himself for any sins or divisions he has. However, if the church knows of one singing who fails to repent then they may deny him access to communion as a disciplinary means to bring him to repentance.

But no one in any of these discussions about open and closed communions who advocates closed communion is stating that it be practiced on exiled believing sinners. No, everyone on both side of this issue agrees that exiled believing sinners who do not repent should not be allowed into communion.

The real problem is that those communions who advocate closed communion are stating that communion should be closed to 1) other non-Baptist believers, 2) Baptists who do not believe as others do, and 3) non-members of a particular local church.

In fact, some are even advocating closed communion to any believer who does not get baptized in the right order or mode or with the right meaning. Of course, this completely disregards the Scriptural evidence and traditional Baptist belief that Baptism is symbolic and designates belief. If we truly believed this then we would not mind if one is poured or sprinkled or performed by a pastor or a church that does not believe as SBC leaders do.

I have fellowshipped with Roman Catholics, refrained from the Eucharist in their worship and kept silent because 1) I am not a Roman Catholic, 2) I was their guest, and 3) I respect their right to closed communion. In fact, I even respect the traditions of those SBC churches which practice closed communion though I would never be a part of such a local church.

However, in the realm of SBC discourse where SBC presidents, agencies, trustees, professors, administrators, and commentators promote the adoption of closed communion by churches, I must spring out and label such an idea as reprehensible, unscriptural and blasphemous.

To deny communion to other believers is to state the following:

“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a sinner and not worthy and needs to be exiled. Your beliefs about the Faith are not simply wrong; they are sins. You’re not just wrong; you are a sinner. You are not worthy. We are, your not.”

Thus, the massive firings over the past quarter century.

Yes, only Southern Baptists who agree with Southern Baptist leaders are worthy to accept communion. But who else is not worthy?

- Women (cannot be deacons or pastors, despite Scriptural mandates)
- Divorcees (cannot be deacons or pastors, despite Scriptural mandates)
- Alcohol drinkers (cannot do anything, despite Scriptural mandates)

I want to focus on this last one: alcohol drinkers.

Alcohol drinkers are not worthy to be trustees. They are not worthy to be pastors. They are not worthy to be deacons or elders. They are not worthy to be seminary professors, seminary students, missionaries, church-planters, SBC employees or members of most SBC churches.

The SBC leaders state that they are right about the alcohol issue and everyone who disagrees with them is not worthy.

Who else is not worthy? Jesus, Timothy, the disciples, the apostles, including Paul, and pretty much every believer in the NT and first century down until the 19th century. Everyone except John the Baptist. Yes, oddly enough, the only NT person worthy to be a Baptist is John the Baptist.

I throw my hands up in disbelief that our SBC leaders are not only ignorant of 1 Corinthians and the Pastoral epistles, but that they are completely ignorant on the books of Luke-Acts and Galatians. In short, there are SBC leaders who want to deny table-fellowship to “Gentiles”. In fact, they go so far as to deny table fellowship to those who practice table-fellowship with “Gentiles”. In the Gospels and Acts, this is called “eating with sinners.” In fundamentalist circles, this is called second-degree separation (separation from people who do not themselves practice strict separation). In the SBC, this is called standard practice.

The SBC removed “liberal” from the SBC. Then the SBC removed moderates from the SBC who didn’t remove themselves from liberals. Then the SBC removed conservative from the SBC who didn’t remove themselves from moderates who didn’t remove themselves from liberals. Then they just removed anyone who disagreed with their tactics. Then they removed anyone who they suspected disagreed with their tactics. Then they removed anyone who they didn’t like personally.

Now they are removing anyone who is charismatic, who drinks alcohol, or isn’t baptized the right way by the right people, or cooperates with non-Baptists or the CBF.

Concerning the CBF and ecumenical cooperation, someone said:

"That is why the CBF is willing to support a hodgepodge of theological institutions representing multiple traditions and denominations, including many non-Baptist traditions. It is interesting, one might argue hypocritical, that in the name of Baptist distinctives, the CBF encourages Baptist students to attend non-Baptist institutions."

Allow me to be tangentially within my academic freedom: No, it’s not hypocritical – it’s ironic. It’s ironic that Baptists with traditional Baptist beliefs have to go among non-Baptist Christians to practice traditional Baptist beliefs because other Baptists won’t let them.

Similarly, it’s not hypocritical that first century Christians who proclaimed to be part of true Israel were forced to go among the Gentile Christians to practice their faith. It’s ironic that first century Christians who proclaim to be a part of true Israel have to go among the Gentile Christians because Jews and many Jewish Christians won’t let them practice the true Israel Christian faith.

A Southern Baptist advocating closed communion recently wrote this:

“Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists insist that it is the Lord’s table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word.”

Yes, this person completely misunderstands I Corinthians 11:17-34. But he is right in so far as he states that communion is Christ’s table and not ours. Thankfully, what this person believes are the criteria to be a part of the communion of the body of Christ. If he was correct, then he and all those now advocating closed communion would be banned from it.

What Is Jesus Like?

"He’s like a campfire that you think has been completely put out and defeated but, instead, lies there simmering below the dirt, dust and ash – perhaps for several days – until, when it has been forgotten by everyone, suddenly sparks to life and comes roaring back stronger than it ever has before to finish what first put it out." - Neil August

To the Seminary Student Interested in SBC Politics:

In recent weeks I have encountered many seminary students who have an interest in SBC politics … at least insofar as they want to know what is going on. As I have stated in my article, To the Incoming Seminary Freshman, concerning studies of the Conservative Resurgence, “chasing after white rabbits is a dangerous past time.” Therefore, allow me to offer some advice for those about to move forward in their studies of SBC politics.

-Love your neighbor as yourself. This means that because every human being is created in the image of God, every human being has value and should be treated as an equal and that every person should treat every other person as if they are that person. This means that no one should be treated with less dignity or value than any other human being. This means that no one should be treated with greater dignity or value than any other human being.

-Keep your eyes and ears open. This means that there is ample opportunities to learn about how and how not to behave as Christian ministers. Watch your professors, administrators and peers. Learn from their successes and mistakes and be aware that they should be looking at you as well.

-Take notes and keep all documentation. You would be surprised about how important it is to keep documentation and email correspondences on record. Such things will always come in handy and prevent anyone from mischaracterizing a given situation.

-Know that those who might want to stop you can always find a reason to do so. You may not have done anything wrong recently, but you may have done something wrong in the past. If people want to get you in trouble THEY WILL FIND SOMETHING. People will punish you for something you did a year prior but which did not get punished. People will search your college record for evidence. People will find insignificant things you have done in order to punish you for something they cannot technically punish you for. People will ignore and neglect established rules for punishment if they can. People will punish you for breaking a rule that will only be made after you have been punished. Don’t expect a hearing fair or otherwise. They will not hear you out, they will not let you speak, they only want you to stop and they will do it whether they should or should not.

-Assume the best of people unless the facts prove otherwise (give the benefit of doubt). Because we are all equal, because we all wish to be given the benefit of the doubt, because this is how God treats us, we should always give everyone this benefit. But even when blame is correctly placed, let us always forgive and move on. Again, because we all wish to be given the benefit of the doubt and because this is how God treats us. However, when a consistent pattern of behavior is evident ... well ... well, just pray about it.

-Practice grace, mercy and forgiveness for all. Everyone is being sanctified at different paces from different starting points and we need to forgive others because God forgave us. I know people who have been believers since childhood and have tremendous faith and spiritual maturity. I know people who have been believers since childhood and have very little faith and are spiritual immature. I also know people who have been believers a very short while and have more faith and spiritual maturity than many “elders”. There really doesn’t appear to be any set (or discernable) pattern or way in which one is sanctified. Really, all we have to go on is fruit. Thus, because we are all on the same path at different starting places and at different paces (with various starts and stops), we need to practice mercy and forgiveness because God is merciful with us. We need to be patient with other believers because God is patient with us. Above all, we need to help discipline other believers because we want (or should want) them to discipline us.

-Only get involve in political matters when someone is being mistreated. Frankly, I do not really care whether someone has a false doctrinal belief. I have enough faith in the grace of God to not worry about such matters. Anyway, most of the politicos have little Scriptural basis for their beliefs so it is futile to reason with them. But politicos make it their business to persecute and mistreat others. I mean this: the last 30 plus years of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC has been a remarkable bloodshed of diabolical and unChristlike mistreatment of others. How many people have been fired because 1) they had “inappropriate” beliefs, 2) they did not agree with the methods of the Resurgence, 3) they were sympathetic to those fired, 4) they were not liked by people in power, or 5) they were around before those who are now in power came to power. In fact, the only reason people are not fired in the SBC is because of incompetence. Probably because that would set a dangerous precedent for those now running the show.

-Don't become disillusioned. Politics has been going on in the church since the first apostles. This does not make it right (quite the opposite) but it does show that the Holy Spirit can accomplish great things despite the foolishness of believers and their leaders. The politicos who do not have the slightest Scriptural evidence for their beliefs and who cannot present a reasonable argument for why anyone should agree with them but, instead, use political muscle to force people to do what they want have always been around and always will. In SBC politics, it does not matter whether your point is right and whether who can win an argument. Other people do not need to either be right or win arguments to get there way. Yes, these people can be believers and conservatives at that. Remember: people who have power do not need good arguments, but people who have good arguments do not need power.

-In political matters, the administration will always get their way. The best approach is not to win issues but rather to cultivate those students who witness these issues and teach them to rise above the politics and avoid the mistakes of the SWBTS administration in their own ministries. At this point, after a generation of systematic abuse and bureaucratic “digging-in”, the only real approach available to us who desire a more Christian approach to the Faith is to prepare the younger generations to assume leadership and wait for the Boomer generation to die out.

-Never let political expediency cause you to neglect or ignore principles of the Faith. The implementation of the Kingdom of God has been a slow and laborious process. The goals of the Kingdom are not accomplished by quick fixes, democratic and legislative victories, judicial decisions, and strong-armed force. The impatient, the aggressive and the greedy will find the Gospel and its message foolish (which includes believers as well). Yes, the implementation of the Kingdom of God is not a quick matter, but one must reach kingdom goals by kingdom methods. This method needs patience, meekness, love, peace, mercy, kindness, and the willingness to meet change by one person at a time. An individual may not see his personal kingdom goals reached in his or her lifetime, but the goals are not about him. Those who desire immediate successes are both impatient and prideful. Kingdom implementation is slow but it is a lot more permanent. A quick win of implementing a kingdom goal can just as easily be turned into a loss. Be patient and confident and do not allow your desire for change to subvert the principles of the Faith and the Kingdom. That is the problem of the Conservative Resurgence.

-Humility on a political issue will solve most of the problems one encounters. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. There has never been nor will ever be a group of believers who gets every single Christian doctrine right. This alone should give us pause to not think that we can fly. Always assume that you could be wrong because you certainly could be. Always assume that some of your beliefs are wrong because undoubtedly some of them are. Nevertheless, if you believe that you are right then never let anyone force you to believe or claim to believe otherwise. Be convinced by the Scriptures and the arguments and nothing less. Don’t hold to the view of the crowd simply because it is the crowd because the crowd is often wrong. Don’t hold to the minority belief simply because it is the minority belief because the minority belief is often wrong. Furthermore, it’s best to proceed conservatively with one’s theological education: thus, hold to the first beliefs you have about a Christian doctrine until you are convinced otherwise. Even if you are unsure, still hold to your first belief; if you are wrong in that first belief then trust the grace of God in that situation. Again, just proceed under the assumption that you are wrong about some of your theology: that keeps you humble, dependent on God, and merciful towards others with whom you disagree. Also, do not care if people disagree with you. I myself do not care if everyone disagrees with me on a doctrine I believe to be true. I do take such disagreement under serious consideration, but I always hold to a belief because I think it is right and (again) not because it is popular.

-Jesus is our example. There is no other. John the Baptist is not our example. Neither is Paul, Peter, Abraham, Moses or Elijah. Do not look to Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards or even Kierkegaard. Do not look to Graham, Barth, Brunner, Niehbuhr, Piper, Stanley, Adrians, Warren, or any other famous pastor. Really do not look at SBC professors, SBC politicians, SBC presidents and administrators as examples. Jesus. Who is our example? It is Jesus! Jesus, I say! Stop looking elsewhere for your example. If you are a Christian, your example is Jesus Christ. Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Without Jesus all other examples are diabolical.

Why ‘inerrancy’ doesn’t matter

Here is an interesting article. I also suggest my articles on the subject:

Soul Competency, Baptist Revisionism, and Inerrancy

Inerrant Art

Truett Seminary student recruiters tell me the most frequent question they receive when promoting the seminary at Baptist colleges and universities is about biblical inerrancy. Does the seminary teach that the Bible is inerrant? Do the professors believe in inerrancy? The answers are easy. As a good Baptist seminary, Truett does not dictate what people must believe on secondary matters of doctrine; the professors vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.

“But wait a minute,” someone will say. “How can you believe in biblical authority and not believe in inerrancy?” That’s an important and valid question that needs to be addressed. I hope you will bear with me as I rush in where angels fear to tread.

For at least the past century, the word “inerrancy” has been a buzzword of controversy among evangelical Christians and Baptists in the United States. Nowhere else has it been such a catalyst for debate and division. For centuries, equally sincere God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians were satisfied to say that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, trustworthy and (often) infallible. “Inerrancy” was raised as a standard against liberalism and higher criticism of the Bible by the rationalistic Princeton theologians of the 19th and early 20th century. Their names are familiar to all students of American theology: Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. As a group, they formed a dynasty of conservative evangelical theology that helped launch the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.

Perhaps the greatest influence of all was exercised by Warfield, who published scores of scholarly and popular books and articles on subjects related to the Bible. He believed strongly in and defended biblical inerrancy. But he did not think belief in it necessary for authentic evangelical faith. Another great evangelical thinker of that time was Scottish theologian James Orr, who did not believe in inerrancy. Warfield and Orr were friends and worked together to fight off liberal theology. Orr contributed to the series of booklets called The Fundamentals that gave the movement its name.

For a long time, evangelical Christians agreed to disagree about inerrancy. Then came the book that fell like a bombshell on the evangelical theological playground—Harold Lindsell’s 1976 The Battle for the Bible. The editor of Christianity Today declared biblical inerrancy an essential of evangelical faith and denounced evangelicals who would not affirm it. I was in seminary when the book was published, and I felt the fallout. Suddenly, the peaceful evangelical spirit of respect in spite of disagreement died under the onslaught of an evangelical inquisition about a word.

We still are living with the negative results of that book and of the controversy—perhaps better termed heresy hunt—it launched. Many people are not satisfied to know that I believe the Bible is God’s authoritative, supernaturally inspired, written word and that it is infallible. They are not satisfied that, like many conservative evangelicals, I affirm the Bible is perfect with respect to its purpose. It cannot and does not fail to communicate God’s transforming message to us. It is the unique instrument of the Spirit’s revelation of Jesus Christ and the gospel to God’s people and the whole world.

The trouble is that, by and large, “inerrancy” has become a shibboleth—a gate-keeping word used to exclude people rather than to draw authentic Christians together for worship and witness. Even its most ardent and staunch proponents admit no existing Bible is inerrant; they attribute inerrancy only to the original manuscripts, which do not exist. They kill the ordinary meaning of the word with the death of a thousand qualifications. If you doubt that, please read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, which usually is considered the standard evangelical account of the concept.

Think about this: If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy but only the original manuscripts were inerrant , then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible. And if “inerrancy” is compatible with flawed approximations, faulty chronologies, and use of incorrect sources by the biblical authors, it is a meaningless concept.

Some defenders of inerrancy will argue that when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:8 that 23,000 Israelites died in a single day, he was not in error, even though Numbers 25:1-9 records of the same event that 24,000 died. How is this not an error? One strategy is to say that Paul actually wrote 24,000, but an early copyist made the error. Another strategy is to say Paul was not trying to give a flawless performance in statistics and therefore, given his purpose, this should not be considered an “error.”

Neither strategy is intellectually honest. The best approach is to admit Paul made a mistake but one that in no way misrepresents God’s message to the Corinthians or to us.

The fact of the matter is that I believe much the same about the Bible as many conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars who insist on the term “inerrancy” as a test of authentic evangelical faith. I just don’t think that’s the best word for what we believe. What we all believe that really matters is that the Bible is inspired, authoritative and infallible in all matters of faith and practice. Our difference lies in the fact that I don’t think a word is all that important; what’s important is our common belief in the Bible as God’s word.

Roger Olson is professor of theology at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

The Parable of the Two Trees

This is a parable set at a time when the man and the woman would sit in the soft grass beneath the Tree of Life and talk with the Lord and the Lord would talk with the woman and the man.

The man and the woman had a happy routine to fill out their days. Every morning of every day, the woman and the man would wake from a deep and restful sleep and begin to tend to the garden the Lord had given them. They enjoyed the work of planting, watering and growing various floras that they found in the garden. The man and the woman would eat from the flora and enjoy the fruit of the trees and the plants that the Lord provided. The woman and the man enjoyed each others company and the talks they had together. The man and the woman enjoyed exploring the garden, observing its various aspects, pointing out to each other these aspects and raising questions for the other to think about. But most of all they enjoyed that time of the day when they would sit in the soft grass beneath the Tree of Life and talk with the Lord.

Once a day when that day began to cool, the woman and the man would go to the Tree of Life and meet the Lord. There the three of them would sit beneath the Tree, eat of its fruit, and talk. There the man and the woman would ask questions of the Lord and the Lord would answer the questions the woman and man asked. Each day the Lord would begin the same way: My children, what would you like to talk about today? And this was their daily routine.

One day, as the day began to cool, the man and the woman did not come to the Tree of Life to meet the Lord. The Lord wondered why the woman and the man were late: My children have not come to the Tree of Life. I shall go and look for them.

My children, where are you? Where are you, man child? Where are you, woman child? ... Where are you man child? ... There you are, my children. Where were you? What are you doing here? We usually sit by the Tree of Life and talk. Why are you hiding by the Tree of Knowledge? There is no one here to talk to, is there, woman child? Man child, why did you not answer me when I called? ... I see. Who told you that? ... Have you eaten the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge? ... I see. Woman child, what is this that the man tells me? ... I see. Because this animal has done this, this animal shall be lowlier than all the other animals. This animal and the woman and her children shall be at odds with each other ... Woman, because you have done this, you will not enjoy your work and you shall not enjoy the company of the man ... Man, because you have done this, you will not enjoy your work and you shall not enjoy the garden. I shall put you back from where I brought you.

Because you came to this Tree, this is the Tree you shall have ... Do not wear leaves to hide from me amidst the plants. I shall not look for you there ... You shall wear these animal skins and remain here with the other animals ... I’m going back to the Tree of Life to sit in the soft grass. I shall come to you because you cannot come to me.