October 31st is commonly known as the day on which we dress up and go trick-or-treating. But, this October 31st, i.e., October 31, 2007, marks the 490th anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in Wittenberg, Germany, an event which sparked a movement of reformation within the church in Europe. Although there had been previous reforming movements within the church, this particular movement initiated by Luther succeeded where the others had failed. With the help of the printing press (which was invented in the mid 14th century and became established in most European cities by the early 15th century), Luther was able to disseminate his ideas much more widely than had been possible before. The 95 Theses were actually 95 concerns or areas of disagreement that Luther had with the church of his day. In posting them, Luther was not trying to stir up trouble. He was no insurrectionist. He simply wanted to debate these issues within the confines of the church and could find no one willing or able to discuss them with him.
As he saw it (and many others who followed him agreed with him), the church had drifted from the Bible and from historic Christianity both in its doctrine and in its practice. In its practice, the church had fostered unprecedented levels of immorality and ignorance among the priesthood. For instance, although priests were not permitted to marry under church law, they were permitted to have a concubine, provided they first paid a fine to the Vatican. Luther and his fellow reformers rightly saw this for what it was—sheer hypocrisy. And as far as the ignorance of the clergy goes, we are told by at least one historian of the 16th century that many priests could not perform basic tasks like stating the 10 commandments from memory or even finding them in the Bible.
In its doctrine, the church—according to Luther and his fellow reformers—had diminished the authority of the Bible and exalted the authority of the church to such a degree that the latter now took precedence over the former. This led to many errors in doctrine, the chief of which, for Luther, was the church’s rejection of the historic and Biblical understanding of salvation (justification by faith alone) and its corresponding embrace of the corrupt practice of selling indulgences (i.e., pardon or “indulgence” for sin given in exchange for money). You may remember the famous saying of Johann Tetzel, describing this practice of selling indulgences and its supposed efficacy: “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” It was against such practices that Luther vehemently reacted when he posted his 95 Theses.
The Reformation that was initiated by Luther on October 31, 1517, sought to correct the abuses and errors in the church by working to return the church to its historic and Biblical moorings. Five Latin slogans were developed to summarize the doctrinal “reforms” that men like Luther, and others who followed after him, were seeking in the church. These slogans, all of which are directly and explicitly taught in the Bible, are as follows: sola gratia (salvation is by God’s grace alone and not by human merit), sola fide (salvation is received by faith alone and not by any of our own works), solo Christo (salvation is by Christ alone and not by any other way—not by priests, churches, saints, or Mary), sola Scriptura (salvation and everything we need for faith and the Christian life is found in Scripture alone and not in any other book or human tradition), and soli Deo gloria (salvation and everything in life is unto the glory of God alone and not partially unto God and partially unto ourselves).
The Reformers believed that no man has the right to bind another person’s conscience and tell him or her what to believe. Only God has this right. That is why Luther could say, when challenged, that he would not believe any doctrine until and unless he was shown from the pages of Scripture that God had in fact taught it. “Here I stand,” Luther said, “I can do no other.” This is what we remember on October 31st.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Halloween and our society
In Sunday's newspaper, there was an article in the "Your Life" section that interviewed local school kids and asked them what they were planning on being for Halloween this week. There were many kids that were included in the article, but the front page listed only 6, and all were 3rd graders.
What shocked me most in this article is that 4 out of the 6 third graders listed on the front page were planning on dressing up as psycho mass-murderers! (Two were going as Freddy Kruger from Nightmare on Elm Street, one as Jason from Friday the 13th, and one as Scream from the movie by the same name.)
Now, we can debate all day long about whether or not we ought to allow our kids to participate in Halloween. Some folks will say that dressing up for Halloween is harmless fun for children. Some may disagree, citing the explicitly Satanic roots of the holiday. But there can be NO debate about this whatsoever. How can there be?
How in the world can ANYONE think it is appropriate for any aged-child, much less a 3rd grader, to dress up like a mass murderer? How could anyone think it is appropriate to approve of such wickedness (if not explicitly, by saying it is okay actually to be a mass murderer, at least implicitly, by allowing them to aspire to be one, even if only for one night)?
Where are the parents of these children? Whatever happened to wanting to be a superhero? or something good and wholesome?
To me, this is an indication of at least three things:
1. The Christian worldview is vanishing from our society. The 16th century reformer John Calvin reminded us that one of the reasons that God gave us His law (in the Bible) was to restrain the sins of society at large and to keep all people, regardless of whether or not they believed in Jesus Christ, living moral lives. The fact that this kind of wickedness can be permitted under the rubric of "good clean fun" proves that our society is becoming further removed from the restraining influences of God's law.
2. Christians are becoming more ineffective in transforming our communities. The fact that society at large is drifting further from the restraining influences of God's law proves that the church is becoming less effective in actually transforming our society. When we couple this with the fact that we still live in the "Bible Belt," that part of our country in which a majority still professes to be Christian, we are presented with the convicting reality that that majority which professes to be Christian obviously has no desire to live according to that profession.
3. Our society has lost its heroes. So, in one sense, why should we be surprised that our children are turning to bad (in fact, downright evil) role models, when they do not have any good ones to choose from? The ONLY role models they have are moviestars. Why should we be surprised that they would choose to be like one of them? We desperately need to reclaim our world and our families from Hollywood. We need REAL heroes today, men and women who are honored for their faith, their good works, their virtue, their character, their courage, loyalty, hard work, sense of duty, selflessness, and sacrificial service to a cause greater than themselves.
Until we correct these things, I'm afraid all we can do is grimace at the prospect of 3rd graders wanting to be mass-murderers!
What shocked me most in this article is that 4 out of the 6 third graders listed on the front page were planning on dressing up as psycho mass-murderers! (Two were going as Freddy Kruger from Nightmare on Elm Street, one as Jason from Friday the 13th, and one as Scream from the movie by the same name.)
Now, we can debate all day long about whether or not we ought to allow our kids to participate in Halloween. Some folks will say that dressing up for Halloween is harmless fun for children. Some may disagree, citing the explicitly Satanic roots of the holiday. But there can be NO debate about this whatsoever. How can there be?
How in the world can ANYONE think it is appropriate for any aged-child, much less a 3rd grader, to dress up like a mass murderer? How could anyone think it is appropriate to approve of such wickedness (if not explicitly, by saying it is okay actually to be a mass murderer, at least implicitly, by allowing them to aspire to be one, even if only for one night)?
Where are the parents of these children? Whatever happened to wanting to be a superhero? or something good and wholesome?
To me, this is an indication of at least three things:
1. The Christian worldview is vanishing from our society. The 16th century reformer John Calvin reminded us that one of the reasons that God gave us His law (in the Bible) was to restrain the sins of society at large and to keep all people, regardless of whether or not they believed in Jesus Christ, living moral lives. The fact that this kind of wickedness can be permitted under the rubric of "good clean fun" proves that our society is becoming further removed from the restraining influences of God's law.
2. Christians are becoming more ineffective in transforming our communities. The fact that society at large is drifting further from the restraining influences of God's law proves that the church is becoming less effective in actually transforming our society. When we couple this with the fact that we still live in the "Bible Belt," that part of our country in which a majority still professes to be Christian, we are presented with the convicting reality that that majority which professes to be Christian obviously has no desire to live according to that profession.
3. Our society has lost its heroes. So, in one sense, why should we be surprised that our children are turning to bad (in fact, downright evil) role models, when they do not have any good ones to choose from? The ONLY role models they have are moviestars. Why should we be surprised that they would choose to be like one of them? We desperately need to reclaim our world and our families from Hollywood. We need REAL heroes today, men and women who are honored for their faith, their good works, their virtue, their character, their courage, loyalty, hard work, sense of duty, selflessness, and sacrificial service to a cause greater than themselves.
Until we correct these things, I'm afraid all we can do is grimace at the prospect of 3rd graders wanting to be mass-murderers!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Mike Dubose at Gridiron
Monday night at Gridiron we hosted the new coach of Millsaps College in Jackson, Mike Dubose. As many of you may remember, Mike used to coach at that OTHER university in Alabama. (Although I can't bear to mention the town in which that university is located, I will point out that it begins with a "T" and ends with a "loosa.") Mike played there under Bear Bryant in the early 1970s, was part of the coaching staff under Gene Stallings, and was named the head coach upon Stallings' retirement at the end of the 1996 season. After leaving this NAMELESS school in 2000, Mike returned to coaching at Millsaps in 2002 and was named head coach a couple of years later.
Coach Dubose mentioned a couple of things in his talk that I wanted to share here.
First, he said that the most important factor in determining the success of any program is COMMITMENT. Without commitment from the top on down to the very bottom, no program will be able to sustain success. While any program can get "lucky" and hit it big in any given year, long term sustained success requires commitment from the top of the school, university, athletic program, football program, etc., on down to the players, assistant coaches, trainers, AND fans and supporters.
As Coach Dubose said, this kind of commitment is rare (not only in football...it's rare in EVERY organization or aspect of life today). In his estimation (and I tend to agree), we are producing (and may have already produced) a generation of quitters. Commitment is a foreign concept today. But without it, he reminded us, we will not know sustained "success" in whatever it is that we are doing.
Second, Coach Dubose cited a quote from Gene Stallings that I wanted to pass along. He said that Stallings used to repeatedly tell the coaching staff and players that they should "never confuse work with accomplishment." This is a timely reminder for us today. Our day in one in which we are in danger of violating this very principle. We are coming dangerously close to confusing work with accomplishment. And so we are busy, busy, busy, even frantically so. All the while, we are accomplishing less and less.
Good reminders for us to think on today. Comments?
Coach Dubose mentioned a couple of things in his talk that I wanted to share here.
First, he said that the most important factor in determining the success of any program is COMMITMENT. Without commitment from the top on down to the very bottom, no program will be able to sustain success. While any program can get "lucky" and hit it big in any given year, long term sustained success requires commitment from the top of the school, university, athletic program, football program, etc., on down to the players, assistant coaches, trainers, AND fans and supporters.
As Coach Dubose said, this kind of commitment is rare (not only in football...it's rare in EVERY organization or aspect of life today). In his estimation (and I tend to agree), we are producing (and may have already produced) a generation of quitters. Commitment is a foreign concept today. But without it, he reminded us, we will not know sustained "success" in whatever it is that we are doing.
Second, Coach Dubose cited a quote from Gene Stallings that I wanted to pass along. He said that Stallings used to repeatedly tell the coaching staff and players that they should "never confuse work with accomplishment." This is a timely reminder for us today. Our day in one in which we are in danger of violating this very principle. We are coming dangerously close to confusing work with accomplishment. And so we are busy, busy, busy, even frantically so. All the while, we are accomplishing less and less.
Good reminders for us to think on today. Comments?
Friday, October 19, 2007
A Bunch of Everlastings--John Bunyan
A friend recently recommended, for my reading pleasure, F.W. Boreham's A Bunch of Everlastings, which is a small book that talks about the favorite Bible texts of many different men in history. Often the texts Boreham presents were the ones that led the particular individual to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes he cites a text that led that individual to an assurance of faith.
This morning I was reading through the chapter on John Bunyan, where Boreham says this:
"Bunyan felt that he was a blot upon the face of the universe. He envied the toads in the grass by the side of the road, and the crows that cawed in the ploughed lands by which he passed. They, he thought, could never know such misery as that which bowed him down."
Then, to show this, he cites Bunyan's own words:
"I walked to a neighboring town, and sat down upon a settle in the street, and fell into a very deep pause about the most fearful state my sin had brought me to; and, after long musing, I lifted up my head; but methought I saw as if the sun that shineth in the heavens did grudge to give me light; and as if the very stones in the street, and tiles upon the houses, did band themselves against me. Methought that they all combined together to banish me out of the world. I was abhorred of them, and unfit to dwell among them, because I had sinned against the Saviour. Oh, how happy now was every creature over me, for they stood fast and kept their station. But I was gone and lost!"
And, then, Boreham continues: "It was whilst he was thus lamenting his hopeless condition that the light broke. 'This scripture,' [Bunyan] says, 'did most sweetly visit my soul: "and him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out." O, what did I now see in that blessed sixth [chapter] of John! O, the comfort that I had from this word!'"
Boreham goes on to say that in John 6:37, Bunyan saw:
1. The "infinite approachability of Jesus,...that it is possible for the most unworthy to go direct to the fountain of grace."
2. The "infinite catholicity [or, universality] of Jesus" to receive and, thus, not cast out, ALL who come to Him in faith. We do not have to earn the right to come to Him. No one is excepted. No matter what we have done; no matter who we are; no matter where we come from; ALL who come to Him in faith will be received and will not be cast out!
3. The "infinite reliability of Jesus," that Jesus WILL NOT cast out those who come to Him in faith.
What a glorious text! We do not have to earn the right to come to Christ. No one is excepted. No matter what we have done; no matter how great a sinner we are; no matter who we are; no matter where we come from; ALL who turn to Him in faith WILL BE received and not be cast out!
It's no wonder that Bunyan was recorded as saying: "That was a good night to me; I have had but few better. Christ was a precious Christ to my soul that night; I could scarce lie in my bed for joy and grace and triumph!"
This morning I was reading through the chapter on John Bunyan, where Boreham says this:
"Bunyan felt that he was a blot upon the face of the universe. He envied the toads in the grass by the side of the road, and the crows that cawed in the ploughed lands by which he passed. They, he thought, could never know such misery as that which bowed him down."
Then, to show this, he cites Bunyan's own words:
"I walked to a neighboring town, and sat down upon a settle in the street, and fell into a very deep pause about the most fearful state my sin had brought me to; and, after long musing, I lifted up my head; but methought I saw as if the sun that shineth in the heavens did grudge to give me light; and as if the very stones in the street, and tiles upon the houses, did band themselves against me. Methought that they all combined together to banish me out of the world. I was abhorred of them, and unfit to dwell among them, because I had sinned against the Saviour. Oh, how happy now was every creature over me, for they stood fast and kept their station. But I was gone and lost!"
And, then, Boreham continues: "It was whilst he was thus lamenting his hopeless condition that the light broke. 'This scripture,' [Bunyan] says, 'did most sweetly visit my soul: "and him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out." O, what did I now see in that blessed sixth [chapter] of John! O, the comfort that I had from this word!'"
Boreham goes on to say that in John 6:37, Bunyan saw:
1. The "infinite approachability of Jesus,...that it is possible for the most unworthy to go direct to the fountain of grace."
2. The "infinite catholicity [or, universality] of Jesus" to receive and, thus, not cast out, ALL who come to Him in faith. We do not have to earn the right to come to Him. No one is excepted. No matter what we have done; no matter who we are; no matter where we come from; ALL who come to Him in faith will be received and will not be cast out!
3. The "infinite reliability of Jesus," that Jesus WILL NOT cast out those who come to Him in faith.
What a glorious text! We do not have to earn the right to come to Christ. No one is excepted. No matter what we have done; no matter how great a sinner we are; no matter who we are; no matter where we come from; ALL who turn to Him in faith WILL BE received and not be cast out!
It's no wonder that Bunyan was recorded as saying: "That was a good night to me; I have had but few better. Christ was a precious Christ to my soul that night; I could scarce lie in my bed for joy and grace and triumph!"
Friday, October 12, 2007
Ann Coulter and Christianity
I saw an interesting article about Ann Coulter appearing on TV on the "Big Idea" recently. She created quite a controversy by telling the host, who is Jewish, that the world would be a better place if everyone in it was Christian. She even invited the host to come to church with her!
I couldn't help but laugh as I read the article just from all the fuss that she stirred up.
What I particularly enjoyed was the flustered reaction of the host. He went on and on about how he thought that she was an educated woman, that is, until hearing her say these things. He called Ann Coulter uneducated and hateful for saying that everyone in the world needed to be a Christian, including Jews like himself.
Now I'm not going to defend what Ms. Coulter had to say; nor am I going to disagree with her. I didn't see the interview and don't know where she stands on the issues. I really don't even know anything about Ms. Coulter herself. But I do find it interesting that a professing Christian who tries to take a stand on what the Bible says (regardless of whether or not we would agree with everything that Ann Coulter said) would be perceived as uneducated or hateful. Why would it be hateful to want the best thing for someone? Why would it be hateful not to let a person live a lifestyle that, though they prefer it, is actually not for their good? Love, by definition, means doing what is best for the beloved. If we use that definition, what Ann Coulter was doing was actually NOT hateful but the essence of love itself! Whether the host agrees with her or not, if she has his best interest in mind (and the best interest of the world in mind), which I have no way of knowing whether she does or not (but, my point is, neither does the TV host), then her sentiments are not hateful but are completely loving.
As far as the uneducated part goes, why does standing on Christian principles (as espoused in the Bible) automatically qualify one as uneducated? Such comments either stem from arrogance on the part of people like the host of that show or from their own utter ignorance, or both.
Perhaps one reason why people regard Christians as inherently "uneducated" is because we have abdicated the mind to the scientists or the thinkers of our world. Far too many of us have sought the "safe" ground of subjectivity and private feelings. If you ask such Christians why they know Jesus lives, perhaps looking for a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15), they will say, in the words of the hymn, "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart." Christians have enabled non Christians to regard us as uneducated by privatizing our faith and by not being able to articulate the rational basis for it.
The Bible says that we ought to be able to give a REASON for the hope that is in us; it doesn't say anything about giving a personal FEELING. Giving a reason requires that we study and educate ourselves. If every Christian labored to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, my guess is that very few in the world would venture to call us uneducated.
What do you think?
I couldn't help but laugh as I read the article just from all the fuss that she stirred up.
What I particularly enjoyed was the flustered reaction of the host. He went on and on about how he thought that she was an educated woman, that is, until hearing her say these things. He called Ann Coulter uneducated and hateful for saying that everyone in the world needed to be a Christian, including Jews like himself.
Now I'm not going to defend what Ms. Coulter had to say; nor am I going to disagree with her. I didn't see the interview and don't know where she stands on the issues. I really don't even know anything about Ms. Coulter herself. But I do find it interesting that a professing Christian who tries to take a stand on what the Bible says (regardless of whether or not we would agree with everything that Ann Coulter said) would be perceived as uneducated or hateful. Why would it be hateful to want the best thing for someone? Why would it be hateful not to let a person live a lifestyle that, though they prefer it, is actually not for their good? Love, by definition, means doing what is best for the beloved. If we use that definition, what Ann Coulter was doing was actually NOT hateful but the essence of love itself! Whether the host agrees with her or not, if she has his best interest in mind (and the best interest of the world in mind), which I have no way of knowing whether she does or not (but, my point is, neither does the TV host), then her sentiments are not hateful but are completely loving.
As far as the uneducated part goes, why does standing on Christian principles (as espoused in the Bible) automatically qualify one as uneducated? Such comments either stem from arrogance on the part of people like the host of that show or from their own utter ignorance, or both.
Perhaps one reason why people regard Christians as inherently "uneducated" is because we have abdicated the mind to the scientists or the thinkers of our world. Far too many of us have sought the "safe" ground of subjectivity and private feelings. If you ask such Christians why they know Jesus lives, perhaps looking for a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15), they will say, in the words of the hymn, "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart." Christians have enabled non Christians to regard us as uneducated by privatizing our faith and by not being able to articulate the rational basis for it.
The Bible says that we ought to be able to give a REASON for the hope that is in us; it doesn't say anything about giving a personal FEELING. Giving a reason requires that we study and educate ourselves. If every Christian labored to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, my guess is that very few in the world would venture to call us uneducated.
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Christian Guidance--Does God speak?
One of the most difficult areas within the Christian life is the area of guidance. Does God speak to His people today and still provide guidance for them?
On one side, we have those like Oral Roberts, who would have us believe that God has spoken to them and, in Roberts' case, that He told him to raise $8 million for OR University or else he would be killed by God. And now we have Roberts' son, Richard Roberts, who, with his wife Lindsay, apparently has been caught in a scandal that alleges all sorts of misconduct and hypocritical behavior. The junior Roberts is now claiming something similar, namely, that God has spoken to him directly, telling him (and the rest of us through Roberts) that this lawsuit is bunk. "We live in a litigious society," God says, according to Roberts. "Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit...is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion."
Well, how nice and convenient. In both Roberts' cases, they have claimed that God has told them something that just happens to suit their own particular fancies. I am tempted to say quite a bit in regard to the particular situations of Oral and Richard Roberts, especially in light of the evidence that is coming out against the latter and his wife. But, I will refrain, largely because it is possible that the Roberts are not guilty of these charges. I simply want to ask one question:
How do we know these things were from the Lord?
How do we know that it was the Lord who told Oral to "threaten" Christians in order to raise $8 million? And how do we know it was the Lord who told Richard that this lawsuit, which appears to cite several instances of significant ethical misconduct, is only about "intimidation, blackmail and extortion"? How do we know it was the Lord and not the pizza they had the night before that was speaking to them?
While there are at least 5 or 6 things that immediately spring to mind to say in response to these things, I want only to raise 1 point today. And that is this:
God does NOT speak today.
Now, before anyone runs to fetch the tar and feathers, please hear me out. I do believe that God guides His people today. So if we define "speak" to mean "guide" (as I'm about to define it) then I wouldn't really have a problem with it. What I mean is that God does not speak audibly to His people today, as He did in the OT. And God no longer speaks new things to His people today, as He did in the OT. To suggest that He does, is to misunderstand what the canon of Scripture is all about and to misunderstand that it is now closed. With the coming of Christ (Heb. 1:1ff), God no longer speaks to His people; He no longer gives new revelation to His people. That is what the warning at the end of the book of Revelation is all about. God's Book is closed. To say that He still speaks is to say that He still HAS to speak; it is to suggest that the Bible is insufficient, that it doesn't give us all that we need to live as Christians. While the Bible clearly is not an encyclopedia of information on every conceivable subject, it is wholly sufficient for matters of faith and practice. God does not speak new things today, because He does not need to. He has already given us everything we need to live as Christians.
But, even though God does not speak, He does, as we have said, guide His people. This guidance, however, is always according to the revealed and sufficient Word of God. If you believe that God is telling you something or leading you in a direction that contradicts something in His revealed Word, then you can count on the fact that it is NOT from God.
To make application, this means, for Richard Roberts (assuming the charges being made against him and his wife are true--and, having seen the charges that are being made, it would appear that they are true at least to some degree) that God most emphatically DID NOT tell him anything like what he is saying God said--not the God of the Bible, anyway. The God of the Bible leads His people into paths of righteousness (Psalm 23:3)--not paths of UNrighteousness--and He does so for His name sake--not for OUR name sake. There is no sin in God; there is not even any shadow of turning. He does not advocate sin, neither does He condone it in any way. God is holy, holy, holy, and, because He is so, He always advocates holiness for His people.
But we need to say more. We need to say that God can and does guide or lead His people into certain courses of actions. He often does so simply by burdening our hearts with a particular situation or issue. This burdening, however, must always be subject to God's Word. And it must be attended by much prayer and the counsel of other mature Christians. And, even then, the MOST that we can say is that we THINK God is leading us in such and such a direction or to do such and such a thing. Even then, we CANNOT say definitively that God has TOLD us to do this.
We are sinful creatures. And our sin affects the decisions that we make. But, if we have been earnest and diligent in seeking the Lord's guidance, in praying through the situation, and in seeking the counsel of godly men and women, we have every reason to expect that it is God who is leading us in that direction.
But, even then, I still wouldn't say that God TOLD us to do it. Why?
Well, each one of us can still be wrong, and the counselors that we seek for advice can also be wrong (we are all sinners and all too prone to error). In this case, then, we would be ascribing to God's will something that actually was a product of our own sinfulness.
What is more, when we say that God told us to do something, it makes it impossible for anyone to disagree with us. How could anyone say that we are wrong? They would then be saying that God actually did NOT tell you that.
I think that is the real reason that folks like Oral and Richard Roberts say that God has told them to do such and such a thing. It removes the issue from further discussion. People who disagree and argue against them are now disagreeing and arguing against God.
On one side, we have those like Oral Roberts, who would have us believe that God has spoken to them and, in Roberts' case, that He told him to raise $8 million for OR University or else he would be killed by God. And now we have Roberts' son, Richard Roberts, who, with his wife Lindsay, apparently has been caught in a scandal that alleges all sorts of misconduct and hypocritical behavior. The junior Roberts is now claiming something similar, namely, that God has spoken to him directly, telling him (and the rest of us through Roberts) that this lawsuit is bunk. "We live in a litigious society," God says, according to Roberts. "Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit...is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion."
Well, how nice and convenient. In both Roberts' cases, they have claimed that God has told them something that just happens to suit their own particular fancies. I am tempted to say quite a bit in regard to the particular situations of Oral and Richard Roberts, especially in light of the evidence that is coming out against the latter and his wife. But, I will refrain, largely because it is possible that the Roberts are not guilty of these charges. I simply want to ask one question:
How do we know these things were from the Lord?
How do we know that it was the Lord who told Oral to "threaten" Christians in order to raise $8 million? And how do we know it was the Lord who told Richard that this lawsuit, which appears to cite several instances of significant ethical misconduct, is only about "intimidation, blackmail and extortion"? How do we know it was the Lord and not the pizza they had the night before that was speaking to them?
While there are at least 5 or 6 things that immediately spring to mind to say in response to these things, I want only to raise 1 point today. And that is this:
God does NOT speak today.
Now, before anyone runs to fetch the tar and feathers, please hear me out. I do believe that God guides His people today. So if we define "speak" to mean "guide" (as I'm about to define it) then I wouldn't really have a problem with it. What I mean is that God does not speak audibly to His people today, as He did in the OT. And God no longer speaks new things to His people today, as He did in the OT. To suggest that He does, is to misunderstand what the canon of Scripture is all about and to misunderstand that it is now closed. With the coming of Christ (Heb. 1:1ff), God no longer speaks to His people; He no longer gives new revelation to His people. That is what the warning at the end of the book of Revelation is all about. God's Book is closed. To say that He still speaks is to say that He still HAS to speak; it is to suggest that the Bible is insufficient, that it doesn't give us all that we need to live as Christians. While the Bible clearly is not an encyclopedia of information on every conceivable subject, it is wholly sufficient for matters of faith and practice. God does not speak new things today, because He does not need to. He has already given us everything we need to live as Christians.
But, even though God does not speak, He does, as we have said, guide His people. This guidance, however, is always according to the revealed and sufficient Word of God. If you believe that God is telling you something or leading you in a direction that contradicts something in His revealed Word, then you can count on the fact that it is NOT from God.
To make application, this means, for Richard Roberts (assuming the charges being made against him and his wife are true--and, having seen the charges that are being made, it would appear that they are true at least to some degree) that God most emphatically DID NOT tell him anything like what he is saying God said--not the God of the Bible, anyway. The God of the Bible leads His people into paths of righteousness (Psalm 23:3)--not paths of UNrighteousness--and He does so for His name sake--not for OUR name sake. There is no sin in God; there is not even any shadow of turning. He does not advocate sin, neither does He condone it in any way. God is holy, holy, holy, and, because He is so, He always advocates holiness for His people.
But we need to say more. We need to say that God can and does guide or lead His people into certain courses of actions. He often does so simply by burdening our hearts with a particular situation or issue. This burdening, however, must always be subject to God's Word. And it must be attended by much prayer and the counsel of other mature Christians. And, even then, the MOST that we can say is that we THINK God is leading us in such and such a direction or to do such and such a thing. Even then, we CANNOT say definitively that God has TOLD us to do this.
We are sinful creatures. And our sin affects the decisions that we make. But, if we have been earnest and diligent in seeking the Lord's guidance, in praying through the situation, and in seeking the counsel of godly men and women, we have every reason to expect that it is God who is leading us in that direction.
But, even then, I still wouldn't say that God TOLD us to do it. Why?
Well, each one of us can still be wrong, and the counselors that we seek for advice can also be wrong (we are all sinners and all too prone to error). In this case, then, we would be ascribing to God's will something that actually was a product of our own sinfulness.
What is more, when we say that God told us to do something, it makes it impossible for anyone to disagree with us. How could anyone say that we are wrong? They would then be saying that God actually did NOT tell you that.
I think that is the real reason that folks like Oral and Richard Roberts say that God has told them to do such and such a thing. It removes the issue from further discussion. People who disagree and argue against them are now disagreeing and arguing against God.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Life and Death
I know I have been remiss in my blogging efforts...alas!
Recently, certain events within the congregation have led me (and others) to reflect upon questions of life and death and pain and suffering. It is at times like this that I am thankful that the Lord placed the book of Job in the Bible. And it is at times like this that I am thankful that the Lord gave us Samuel Rutherford and his Letters.
This morning I was reading in Rutherford's Letters and came across this gem of a sentence:
"It is not long days, but good days, that make life glorious and happy; and our dear Lord is gracious to us, who shorteneth and hath made the way to glory shorter than it was; so that the crown that Noah did fight for five hundred years, children may now obtain it in fifteen years."
In this world, we judge a good life by its length. We say, "It must have been nice for Noah to live so long." Why do we think this way? We have forgotten (or we don't really believe) that heaven is FAR better than this life. Why is it better to struggle with sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, pain, affliction, disaster, etc., for 950 years (or even 70-80 years, for that matter)? We have forgotten (or we don't really believe) Paul's words in Philippians 1:21: "to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (ESV, emphasis added).
Recently, certain events within the congregation have led me (and others) to reflect upon questions of life and death and pain and suffering. It is at times like this that I am thankful that the Lord placed the book of Job in the Bible. And it is at times like this that I am thankful that the Lord gave us Samuel Rutherford and his Letters.
This morning I was reading in Rutherford's Letters and came across this gem of a sentence:
"It is not long days, but good days, that make life glorious and happy; and our dear Lord is gracious to us, who shorteneth and hath made the way to glory shorter than it was; so that the crown that Noah did fight for five hundred years, children may now obtain it in fifteen years."
In this world, we judge a good life by its length. We say, "It must have been nice for Noah to live so long." Why do we think this way? We have forgotten (or we don't really believe) that heaven is FAR better than this life. Why is it better to struggle with sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, pain, affliction, disaster, etc., for 950 years (or even 70-80 years, for that matter)? We have forgotten (or we don't really believe) Paul's words in Philippians 1:21: "to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (ESV, emphasis added).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
