Pain Now, the Land of Happy Later

Date February 20, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall

In his book of children’s poems, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Shel Silverstein has this poem titled “The Land of Happy”:

Have you been to The Land of Happy,
Where everyone’s happy all day,
Where they joke and they sing
Of the happiest things,
And everything’s jolly and gay?
There’s no one unhappy in Happy,
There’s laughter and smiles galore.
I have been to The Land of Happy–
What a bore!

Growing up, this poem was unsettling to me; to affirm it seemed somehow wrong, and yet I knew it to be true.  I much preferred books, movies, and television shows that included bad guys and the people fighting to stop them over stories about people living happily and somewhat non-eventfully.  I couldn’t reconcile my preference with the fact that heaven would have none of this excitement; what was wrong with me that I didn’t prefer the Land of Happy?

It’s taken me years, but I finally see now that there’s no contradiction between 1) loving, honoring, and desiring good and 2) preferring stories with bad guys over the Land of Happy.  I was drawn to stories with evil and suffering not because I was attracted to the evil, but because that evil brought out the glory and character of the good that struggled against it; it was the response of goodness that I was tuning in to see.  The characters in those stories who rose up against the bad guys revealed the power and beauty of goodness in a way that an unprovoked–though perfectly good–character would not.

I’m not saying that goodness needs evil to exist–that would be nonsense.  I’m saying that there are aspects of goodness and God’s character (which is the definition of goodness) that we would never understand, appreciate, or glorify were we not to see Him interact with a sinful world.

Let me explain what I mean.  Think of all the heroes of 9/11–those who saved others, often at the cost of their own lives.  The day before 9/11, those people shopped, put gas in their cars, and fed their kids.  Nobody could see the depth of their character by watching them do these ordinary things; it took something as horrible as 9/11 to reveal their strength, courage, and selflessness to the world even though those traits already existed within each of them. 

In the same way, God’s character would have been the same regardless if sin had ever come into the world, but there would have been many aspects of Him that we would never have seen, experienced, or understood, and so we would have known Him less deeply.  God would have been just (as He always was), but without judgment, would we have known?  God would have been merciful and forgiving, but without our need for mercy, would we see this?  The very words “judgment” and “mercy” would be meaningless to us. 

The aspects of God’s character we learn about now from our suffering will make our time with Him in eternity even more glorious.  But after sin has served its purpose here, we won’t need it to continue.  We’ll have all of human history on which to reflect in order to truly know God’s character, and all of eternity to enjoy Him face to face in peace.

He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces,
And He will remove the reproach of
His people from all the earth;
For the Lord has spoken.
And it will be said in that day,
“Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us.
This is the Lord for whom we have waited;
Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.”

Isaiah 25:8-9

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Theology Comments No Comments »

Book Review: Why Good Arguments Often Fail by James Sire

Date February 19, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Some how many Christians have adopted the notion that if
they put forward the right arguments for Christian truth claims (such as God’s
existence or Christ’s resurrection), then they can persuade any person to
become a Christian. These Christians are often disappointed and dismayed when
they’re best efforts seems to go no where. Dr. James W. Sire explores why this
is the case in Why Good Arguments Often
Fail.

The book is divided in three parts consisting of 12
chapters. Part 1 examines the most common logical fallacies by reflecting on a
“Love is a Fallacy” by Max Shulman. Part 2 looks beyond logical fallacies to
issues of character, perception, worldviews (naturalism and postmodernism), and
sin. In Part 3, Dr. Sire offers two persuasive approaches, one from the Apostle
Paul in Acts 17 and one from his own experience. The last chapter is a thorough
annotated bibliography divided into ten categories.

I think there are primarily two reasons people should buy
this book. The first is that Part 1 of the book is an excellent introduction to
basic critical thinking. Dr. Sire takes seemingly abstract rules of logic and
makes them tangible through clear explanations and applications to arguments
against Christianity and even a few bad arguments Christians sometimes put
forward. The second reason this book is worthwhile is for the bibliography at
the end. It is a handy guide that covers most apologetic issues in great
detail.

While apologetics deals primarily with intellectual issues
for rejecting Christianity, almost every non-Christian (if not all) have other
issues that must be dealt with. This book acknowledges this by addressing the
character of the Christian evangelist and the “moral blindness” of the non-Christian.
However, it’s general approach is of an intellectual nature and I think it’d be
stronger if it dealt with sin and psychological issues to a further extent.

Why Good Arguments Often
Fail is a much needed book to help Christians think more critically about
the arguments they put forward for Christianity. Dr. James W. Sire’s experience
and wisdom provides ample illustrations and insights that can make our overall
case for Christ more persuasive to non-Christian ears.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Link Labyrinth

Date February 16, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Dr. Bruce Metzger past away Tuesday. John Piper and Ben Witherington have published reflections. (HT: Between Two Worlds) Dr. Metzger so profoundly influenced New Testament studies that he was certainly among the most important of twentieth century scholars.

Major media has again displayed its utter moral bankruptcy. It's grossly obsessed with the death of Anna Nicole Smith, someone who had basically no influence on our society, and yet it barely flinched at a Muslim who killed 5 people in a Utah mall. The act of terrorism was mostly ignored, and that is a significant reason why we will likely suffer another 9-11 type of attack. Our culture is too deep in celebrating plastic people to notice that it's falling apart.

Dr. Gordon Lewis has written a brief yet substantive letter to Christianity Today responding to Scot McKnight's article on the “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.” (HT: Groothuis)

I'm getting rather sick of the major Republican candidates for President in 2008. Each of them appears strong on one or two important issues, but repugnant when it comes to all the others. While media swarms the guys with make-up, I'm looking into some guys with substance, such as Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.

Somewhere between funny and disturbing: Let the Bodies Hit the Floor.

Dr. Bruce Edwards, one of the predominant C.S. Lewis scholars of our time, edited a 4 volume work on Lewis due out in April. He'll also be a plenary speaker at what looks to be a great October conference in North Carolina. Anyone interested in meeting me there?

The U.S. Mint released the first of it's Presidential $1 Dollar coins today, bearing the likeness of George Washington. Thankfully, these coins are better looking than the ugly Sacagawea Dollar. It will stimulate more coin collecting, which is good for my job (at a coin shop), but since most Americans prefer paper dollars to coins, I don't think they'll make much difference in the long run. Speaking of coins, I think there should be more coin collectors blogging.

For those of you who play the 24 drinking game, which depends upon Jack yelling “Dammit!”, I don't think this season has been very eventful. Maybe we should change it to a shot for every Bauer family member who betrays Jack and their country.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 4 Comments »

Book Review: Mere Humanity by Donald T. Williams

Date February 12, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

In The Lion, the
Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lucy Pevensie found an interesting book on her
friend’s bookshelf titled Is Man a Myth?
The subject matter makes sense from a world in which no human had been for quite
some time. But even in our world questions about what it means to be human are
at best unresolved by our culture. In Mere
Humanity, Donald T. Williams explores humanity in the work of G.K.
Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien.

Mere Humanity consists
of an introduction, six chapters, concluding thoughts, and two appendices. In
between each of these are one-page poetic “interludes” that reflect on various
aspects of humanity. Over the six chapters, Dr. Williams analyzes The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton, “On
Faerie Stories” and The Lord of the Rings
Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, and The
Abolition of Man, The Space Trilogy,
and The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S.
Lewis.

Continue reading this review at Never Enough Tea.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

The View From Solomon's Porch

Date February 8, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall

Doug Pagitt and his emerging church on Christianity, including their view of you if you're conservative:

 

 

Now compare that to these.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology Comments 13 Comments »

God Hates Injustice, Not Inequality

Date February 7, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall

In his post, “God Hates Inequality,” Jim Wallis argues that the Bible demands we raise the minimum wage because God hates inequality.

Leaving aside the issue of hermeneutics regarding the passage Wallis chose to support his position and the question of whether or not we should raise the minimum wage, I actually have no reason to think that God hates inequality (in terms of results, not in terms of unjustly applied laws and oppression) as Wallis’s title says.  That seems to be more of a Marxist idea than a biblical one.

I think He hates greediness, injustice (e.g., withholding a person’s agreed-upon wages, using dishonest scales, accepting bribes), oppression (e.g., imposing heavy rent and tribute, keeping the clothes off people’s backs as pledges overnight, inflicting violence), a lack of giving, and suffering.  But inequality–the mere fact that some people have more than others?  I’m not sure I see that condemned in the Bible.  

A couple years back, a law was passed by the people of California that compelled everyone who makes over a million dollars to pay an extra tax.  This really disturbed me.  I don’t like the idea of people taking from others just because they have more.  The Mosaic Law not only says we’re not to favor the rich, it also says we’re not to favor the poor.  We’re also not to covet what the rich have, nor are we to take what is theirs for our own, regardless of how much they have.

Wallis uses the following argument to support his position:

The average worker [in America] has to work a whole year to make what their boss makes in one day. This is wrong; it’s an injustice; it’s a theological issue.

 

An injustice?  Because one person makes more than another?  Even though the standard of living for all our people is so much higher than nearly every (if not every) other country in the world?  I don’t like the fact that the word “justice” is now being used to mean “equality.”  The two words are not synonymous.  For example, I worked in the film industry, and I knew the outrageous amounts some people were paid, but this never made me angry.  Just because I had to work one and a half weeks to make what the Director of Photography made in one day (that’s eight years to make what he makes in one–and our production assistants would have to work fifteen), was that an injustice?  I think Wallis has a misunderstanding of what justice is.  I was not oppressed by the mere fact that someone was making so much more money than I was, nor was I cheated in any way.  We were all paid the amounts for which we agreed to work at the agreed upon time; we were treated equally justly, though we had unequal results.

Perhaps Wallis is confusing justice and equality because he assumes that if anyone does have a great deal more money than others, that person must be dishonest and/or an oppressor (another residue of Marxism, I think), but this is not the case.  It’s possible to be wealthy and still giving, righteous, and even good.  Look at Job.  Job stole no money from others, neither did he oppress anyone.  He and his servants were unequal, yet he was approved by God.  How could this be?  Because Job was just, and that is the category that God cares about, not inequality.

(HT:  Sacred Frenzy)

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics, Theology Comments 21 Comments »

The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 4

Date February 3, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part One of this series. Audio of the whole sermon.
Part Two of this series.
Part Three of this series.

How Do We Pursue the
Proper Role of the Bible in Evangelism?

So far we have seen why the Bible has a role in evangelism
and what that role is. But how can we pursue this role? How can we make
application of this to our lives? I believe there are three closely related
ways we can do this:

1)      First
and foremost, we must dedicate ourselves to personally studying and meditating
on the rich truths found in God’s Word. This really is the point of this Sola
Scriptura series. The Bible is true and authoritative in and of itself, but its
purpose is to be proclaimed and applied to our lives.

If we want to understand the
trustworthiness of the Scriptures, we must investigate what it says. If we want
to have a fully functioning community that glorifies God, we must treasure
God’s Word together. If we want to live lives that reflect God righteousness,
we must apply His Word to our lives with humility and without hesitation. And
if we want to evangelize in a manner that will best communicate the Gospel to
our fallen world, we must study the message of the Bible and discover how it
directs our means for evangelism.

2)      Secondly,
we must seek out experienced Bible teachers to guide us through the difficult
passages we will find. Not many of us here, if any, know enough Greek and
Hebrew or historical contexts to understand everything the Bible has to offer.
We must adopt the discipline of learning from those who have more knowledge and
wisdom than us in order to make the most of our time spent in the Bible.

3)      Thirdly,
we must hold each other accountable to what is taught in the Scriptures. As
members of Christ’s body we each bear the responsibility to sharpen one another
according to what is required of us by God’s Word. In this way, we live out
what we saw in Colossians as the foundation for Biblical community: teaching
and admonishing each other according to the rich words of Jesus Christ.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 3

Date February 2, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part One of this series. Audio of the whole sermon.
Part Two of this series.

The Role of the Bible
in Evangelism: Foundation for the Tools of Evangelism

When we talk about evangelism, we usually do not simply mean
the content of the Gospel. We often have in mind the means of communication for
the Gospel as well. Such means include apologetics, community, and right
living. But these means are not independent tools for us to use as we wish.
Every means for evangelism must be rooted in the foundation of the Bible. The
authority of the Bible applies to each of these means and it provides guidelines
for how to appropriately use these means. Therefore, the secondary role of the
Bible in evangelism is to provide a foundation the means of evangelism.

Apologetics:

Let’s first look at how the Bible provides foundational
guidelines for apologetics. Traditionally, to give an apology has meant to give
a defense. So when we discuss Christian apologetics, we’re talking about
defending the Christian faith. The Bible describes apologetics and one of its
core principles in 1 Peter 3:15-16:

1 Peter 3:15-16 “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord
as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a
reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile
your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

Not only are we to be prepared to give a defense for our
beliefs, but we must follow the guideline of being gentle and respectful of
those we’re conversing with.

Some people claim that the Bible provides the foundation for
a specific method of apologetics. These people generally divide into two camps:
Evidentialists, those who focus on using evidences for Christianity such as the
facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus, and Presuppositionalists, those
who focus on dismantling the hidden assumptions non-Christians use to form
their beliefs such as the idea that the physical natural world is all that
exists. Much ink has been spent debating between these two sides, sometimes to
the extent that more care is given to developing the so-called correct
methodology than actually doing apologetics and presenting the Gospel to
non-believers.

So what might we say about apologetic methodology? Do we
focus strictly on evidences or on people’s presuppositions? (In posing this question, I acknowledge that many Presuppositionalists, for example, do include evidences in their apologetic. However, I've been told by several Presuppositionalists that using evidences is some how offensive to God. So I think the question is fair as it relates to those who draw such a drastic dichotomy.) I believe the Bible
suggests a coherent balance between the two. Let’s look to Paul’s address in Athens as an example of
how this might work:

Acts 17:22-31 “So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men
of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed
along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this
inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this
I proclaim to you. The God who made the world
and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples
made by man, nor is he served by human hands,
as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and
breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live
on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the
boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that
they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far
from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we
are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God's
offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver
or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of
ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by
a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by
raising him from the dead.”

We should keep in mind that what we have here is likely a
summary of Paul’s message. However, speeches in the Areopagus often when on for
hours. Our pastor would have fit in well there. Paul went first to the
presuppositions of the Athenians. He addressed their belief in an unknown god,
and argued that the God of the universe is knowable and described how we might
know him. Paul concluded with evidential claims about Jesus’ resurrection, and
according to the verses that follow, these claims divided the crowd. Some
mocked and some joined him.

The methodological principle we find for apologetics in the
Bible is not strict presuppositionalism or strict evidentialism. Rather, we
find that different means are used according to different circumstances and the
people being evangelized.

Community:

Another means for evangelism is community. Sean did an
excellent job of exploring the relationship between Sola Scripture and
community a couple of weeks ago, and I wish to expand upon some of his points
here. Paul painted a great picture of what community looks like in his letter
to the Colossians…

Colossians 3:16-17 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you
richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And
whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

This is a key expression of what our community should look
like when it is founded upon the Bible. Community begins with the word of
Christ and we are to let it dwell in us and use it to teach and admonish one
another. But our community is not for our benefit only. Our community is to be
a demonstration of Christ’s love and as such is a means for communicating the
Gospel message. In John 17, a passage we’ll get to in a few years, we find
Jesus praying for his disciples.

John 17:20-21 “I do not ask for these only, but also for
those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just
as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also might be in us, so that
the world may believe that you send me.”

Francis Schaeffer offered an important reflection upon this
passage:

“Jesus goes on in this 21st verse to say
something that always causes me to cringe. If as Christians we do not cringe,
it seems to me we are not very sensitive or very honest, because Jesus here
gives us the final apologetic. What is the final apologetic? ‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.’ That
is the final apologetic… We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father
sent the Son, that Jesus’ claims are true, and the Christianity is true, unless
the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians.”

In other words, our ability to love one another as a unified
body of Christ is a measure of our ability to evangelize. If we cannot love one
another as a harmonized community, then God will have little use for us in
saving the lost.

Right Living:

Last week, Chris explored the relationship between
sanctification and Sola Scriptura, and I wish to expand on this to as it
related to right living as a means of evangelism. First, we find in 2 Timothy
that the Bible is the appropriate foundation for how we are to live our lives…

2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, that the man of God may be
competent, equipped for every good work.”

Every good thing we do is rooted in and directed by what we
find in God’s Word as He applies it to our lives. Through learning about His
Word our minds become transformed as was emphasized last week through Romans
12:1-2. There is, of course, some overlap between our personal actions and how
we act as a community. We are responsible to show unity as a community, and we
are also personally responsible to show love toward one another.

John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you
love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for
one another.”

Jesus claimed here that the world will be able to judge
whether or not we are Christians by the love we show for each other. If we
cannot, as individuals, also reflect the love of Christ in our lives, then we
will be no different from the world around us.

Now there are some who say that our primary focus in
evangelism should be on apologetics, or on community, or on right living. Many
of us have heard that line from St. Francis of Assisi “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use
words if necessary.” While all of these things are helpful, good, and required
of us as Christ’s ambassadors to the world, words are necessary. Apologetics,
community, and right living in relation to evangelism are simply means to an
end. The ultimate end is the presentation of the Gospel message. To have great
arguments for the Christian faith, a loving community, or a moral lifestyle alone
for the purpose of evangelism is to miss the point completely. The point of all
of this is to get to what the Bible declares to be the good news for those who
are dead in sin.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 2

Date January 31, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part One of this series. Audio of the whole sermon.


The Authority of the
Bible

Since the Bible was authored by God, it bears His
trustworthiness and authority. We cannot disconnect the truth of the Bible or
its authority from its author. Bishop N.T. Wright put it this way: “the phrase
‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for
‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture.’” In regard to the Bible’s trustworthiness, we
believe it is utterly true because it comes from God who is utterly true.
Likewise, we believe the Bible is authoritative because it comes from the God
who is supremely authoritative.

Carl discussed the trustworthiness of the Bible in his
message; I would here like to briefly explore its authority. Obviously there
are other sources of knowledge we believe to be authoritative. For example, we
look to those more educated than us for their knowledge in specific areas. If I
want to know about VW Things, I talk to our pastor. If I want to know about finances, I
talk to David or Jana. If I want to know about being sanguine, I talk to Alexis. I consider them authorities on those subjects. But the
Bible conveys special revelation, and so there is something different about its
authority than any other source of knowledge.

We might describe the Bible’s authority in two ways: Primary
and Final. When we say the Bible is the primary authority, we mean that on all
matters of faith and practice we look it first. When we say that the Bible is
the final authority, we mean that every claim or idea must be checked against
the Bible. If there is contradiction or inconsistency, the thing foreign to the
Bible is wrong.

For example, here is a hypothetical matter of faith and
practice. Through reading my Bible, I discover that self-sacrifice is a virtue
of Christian living. This illustrates the primary authority of the Bible. On
the local news I hear about a man who dies attempting to save a squirrel stuck
on the ledge of a tall building. I may think to myself, “Perhaps this is how I
might practice self-sacrifice.” But in returning to the Bible, I discover that
though many animals are cute and cuddly, they are not made in the image of God
as man is and they are not worth the life of a man. I conclude, then, that
sacrificing myself for an animal is not a virtue of Christian living.

Living out the authority of the Bible in our lives means
that we allow the Bible to inform and shape our understanding of ourselves and
the world around us.

The Role of the Bible
in Evangelism: The Content of the Gospel

These truths that we’ve unpacked so far- that the Bible is
necessary, trustworthy and authoritative revelation from God- tell us why the
Bible has a role in evangelism. Now we must explore what exactly that role is.

First we may say what it is not.

Picture from Saved- It is not a missile to be
launched at sinners as was done by Mandy Moore in the movie Saved.

Picture of Roger w/ Kiefer- Additionally, the Bible
is not a torture device such that it might be used by Jack Bauer to get a
confession out of someone.

Rather, the primary role of the Bible in evangelism is to
provide the propositional content, or matters of fact, of the message of the
Gospel. Though in evangelism we might discuss reasons to believe in God’s
existence or some other aspect of Christian faith, the Bible alone provides the
ultimate message Christians are to bring to the world. We have already seen
this through Romans 1 and 10. Wayne Grudem explains: “The Bible is necessary
for salvation, then, in this sense: one must either read the gospel message in
the Bible itself, or hear it from another person.” Yet even if the message is
heard from another person, its ultimate source is the Bible and the message
preached must adhere to what is taught in the Bible to truly be good news.

We often claim that the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit alone
can regenerate a sinner and give them the gift of faith. Regardless of how
great our arguments are or how nice we are, salvation is ultimately from the
Lord. So why, then, are we to evangelize? God has decided to use the members of
His church to proclaim the truth to the lost. I do not know why, and I don’t
believe we are privy to God’s reasons for doing this. But the Bible is clear
that God does want us to go, teach, disciple, and baptize, as was commanded by
Jesus before He ascended into heaven. I’d like to give you two examples of the
necessity of the Gospel being preached by God’s people.

Acts 10:1-8 “At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a
centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God
with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed
continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he
saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.”
And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to
him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And
now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose
house is by the sea.” When the angel who spoke to him had departed, he called two
of his servants and a devout soldier from among those who attended him, and
having related everything to them, he sent them to Joppa.”

The verses that follow tell of how Peter arrived and
preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his household and how they were all saved
and baptized as a result. Why did God choose to use Peter in this situation? If
God can give a man a vision of an angel, why wouldn’t simply have the angel
tell the man the good news? We might come up with some speculative answers, but
they would remain speculations.

Just over a year ago I met a man who had just converted to
Christianity from Islam. His Muslim parents had raised him to be an educated
defender of Islam. Just as we have Christian apologists who argue for the truth
of Christianity, so was this man a Muslim apologist who spent his time
attempting to make a reasonable case for Islam. In college, he had a Christian
friend who repeatedly debated with him and told him about Jesus Christ. He
found the Christian apologetics formidable, but not enough to shake his Muslim
faith. Over time, however, he claimed he had two visions and a dream, each
where the Lord came to him and told him he would convert to Christianity. He
believes that both his Christian friend’s message and his visions were
necessary for his ultimate conversion.

I could offer other stories of Muslims coming to faith
through supernatural circumstances, and they would each illustrate the same
points. On one hand, God is sovereignly deciding whom He will save. Only those
whom God has chosen receives these visions and dreams. On the other hand, God
is still using Christians to proclaim and defend the good news of Gospel. This
is quite humbling. Though God could save every person in the world without us,
we find in the Bible and in the world still today that God uses His people to
advance and enlarge His Kingdom. Why is this? The only answer I can give is
that He does so for His own glory and good pleasure.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 3 Comments »

The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 1

Date January 30, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

This past Sunday I preached the fourth (and last) sermon in our church's series on Sola Scriptura. It was a bit of a rush job and I was rather nervous since I hadn't given a sermon in over 3 years, but I think some of you may find it interesting. You can find audio through our church's podcast or via this link. I'll be posting my notes (pretty much the full-text) in four parts over the course of the week.

Sola Scriptura: The
Bible & Missiology
January 28, 2007
Sermon- The Portico
Church in Orange, CA
10:30 am
Roger N Overton
Romans 1:16-20

Thesis: The Bible is essential to evangelism due to its
nature as special revelation. In evangelism, the Bible provides the content of
the Gospel and the foundation for means of presenting the Gospel. The Bible
most readily fulfills its role when Christians hold each other accountable to
it and study and mediate on it regularly.

Scripture Reading,
introduce liturgy.

Romans 1:16-20 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it
is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first
and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from
faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For
what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have
been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things
that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Revelation in Romans

In thinking about the role of the Bible in evangelism, we
must first look to the nature of the Bible. What is it? Carl did an excellent
job in the first message of the series showing that the Bible is comprised of
God’s trustworthy words. I’d like to unpack that a bit further by looking to
Romans 1:16-20.

We might divide this passage into two parts which describe
two different groups of people. The first group is described as those who
believe according to the power of God. Paul, the author of Romans, says that in
the Gospel the “righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith.” There
is some debate among interpreters as to what is meant by “from faith for
faith.” I will simply suggest here that it refers to the righteousness of God
being revealed as a gift to those who have faith, who believe in the promises
of God.

There is much to be treasured in these two verses, but I
would like to point you to one specific point. Some sort of revelation is being
described here, and that revelation is limited. Not everyone has faith, and so
not everyone receives this revelation.

Moving on to verse 18 we see another sort of revelation. In
this case, the wrath of God is being revealed to the unrighteous in the world.
But not just the wrath of God, it continues and claims that the things that can
be known about God have been revealed to the unrighteous and they have
suppressed this knowledge. Who are the people who have received this
revelation? Everyone, since everyone is born in unrighteousness and live out
ungodliness.

Special v. General
Revelation

So we see two sorts of revelation being described here: one
is limited and one is not. These are often referred to as Special revelation
and General or Natural revelation, respectively. Paul’s comment “so they are
without excuse” at the end of verse 20 shows that general revelation, which
everyone has access to, is enough to condemn us. However, the righteousness of
God is only revealed to a select few, so while all are naturally condemned, not
all are eventually saved.

Without special revelation, then, salvation is impossible.
The heathen who does not hear the good news of Jesus Christ has no chance for
being saved. He is justly condemned for being a sinner, as we all would be if
it were not for the saving gift of faith. Remarkably, some Christians claim
that people can be saved on the basis of general revelation. They claim that it
would be unfair of God to condemn those who have not had the opportunity to
respond to the claims of the Gospel, so, if they’re good enough, God will have
grace on them and save them anyway.

Apart from having to biblical justification for their view,
the Bible clearing teaches against this. First, in this passage of Romans, Paul
is clear that everyone is without excuse because everyone has enough basic
knowledge of God to know of their unrighteousness. And if we move further along
Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome,
we find it rather directly stated:

Romans 10:14-15 “But how are they to call on him in whom
they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have
never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are
they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the
feet of those who preach the good news!’”

Paul deductively shows the necessity of special revelation
by claiming that there is no other way for someone to believe in and call upon
the name of Christ and thus be saved. This Gospel, this special revelation, is
a gift of faith to God’s chosen children who are saved by faith. To claim otherwise,
to claim that some may be saved without special revelation, is to claim that
some might be saved on the basis of their good works. This path dead ends at
heresy and is a dangerous teaching in a world so desperately in need of the
grace of God that is revealed through the Gospel.

The Bible is
Necessary Special Revelation

Where does the Bible fit into the categories of Special and
General Revelation? It is Special revelation. Not everyone in the world has
access to it, innately knows what is discussed in it, nor do we naturally have
the ability to understand what is discussed in it. Indeed, it is only by
through the gift of the Holy Spirit that we understand anything spiritual found
in the book.

1 Corinthians 2:9-12 “As it is written, ‘What no eye has
seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for
those who love him’- these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a
person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no
one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have
received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we
might understand the things freely given us by God.”

Because the Bible describes God and His work, the Spirit is
necessary for us to understand it. This separates the Bible from any other
book. With enough literary, philosophic, linguistic, and scientific study, we
can understand any book that man has ever written. But no amount of sole human
effort can bring understanding of God’s Word. The Bible is the only book
authored by God or by men “moved along by the Holy Spirit” as is claimed in 2
Peter 1:21. Thus, the Bible is Special Revelation.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »