- - Endorsed
- - Indifferent
- - Contested
|The Nashville Statement
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
| Hebrews 8 - Part I
|This seems like a good place to start:
Essentially the author of Hebrews is saying "B necessarily follows A". I'll plug in the values shortly...
For when the priesthood is changed of necessity there takes place a change of law also
- Hebrews 7:12 [NASB].
Recall that the Levitical Priesthood was established on Mt. Sinai after God delivered the descendants of Israel from captivity in Egypt. It was there that Moses received, on behalf of all Israel, the rules and regulations which defined God's Covenant with Israel - including the laws associated with who could become a Levitical priest, and who could become a High Priest.
In the sermon on the mount, our Lord makes it clear that the Law (given to Israel on Sinai) cannot and will not be changed: "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" - Matthew 5:18 [NASB].
As the Melchizedekian priesthood is neither defined nor regulated by the Old (i.e. Mosaic) Covenant, it follows that if Christ is a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, that his High Priesthood would in a similar way be outside the jurisdiction of the Old Covenant Laws.
Hence, if A (Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek), then B (the Old Covenant laws do not, and cannot apply to Christ's priesthood ).
The author at this point is gearing up to explain Christ's ministry in the only context it which it can be explained: in the context of the previously promised New Covenant.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34 [NASB]
posted by Daniel @
| T4G 2018
|Last night a group of us who are going to T4G - i.e. the Together for the Gospel conference this coming April, met to register, book our flights, and decide upon accommodations together.
Myself and my friend Dan decided during the 2016 conference that we ought to do whatever we could to bring our wives the next time we went to the conference. I began upon our return to set aside a little money every month in order to have the funds I would need to bring my wife along with me the next time we went. Though I am an associate pastor, I am not on salary, and our humble budget runs too far in the humble department to provide for anyone but our Senior pastor to go on the trip. Thankfully with planning and and frugal living, we'll be able to go.
Last time we went, there were four of us, myself, Dan, his son Joel - who is the other associate pastor, and a friend of our also named Dan (Yes, three Dan's and a Joel). The third Dan wasn't available to meet with the rest of us last night, but I believe he intends to join us along with one or more of his son's, and possibly his wife. Likewise our friend Lora from church - a worship leader who is cooler than all of us put together, and can really, really sing nice, as well as play the guitar - is coming also, along with a couple we've known from our previous church, Adam and Mel, who will be driving, and friend of Joel's I haven't met named Mark, who couldn't make the meeting either, but who will be travelling with us. Adam and Mel will be driving down to Kentucky, with Lora, but the rest of us booked flights.
Being Canadian, we were all able to take advantage of the International attendant pricing for the conference, which was further reduced because we registered as "early birds". All that was left was to settle on our accommodations.
The last time we were there we stayed at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on South 4th Street, near the local Hard Rock Cafe. Our stay there had been pleasant enough, but the hotel was just far enough away from the conference to make lunch hours very tight. So we wanted to try for the Galt House hotel this time. My wife and I booked an executive suite at the Galt House, as did my friend Dan and his wife Kathy. Joel also booked a room for himself and his friend Mark (or was it Mike? Bah, I'll find out sooner or later). Adam and Mel, because they will be driving, booked at the Best Western a few miles away, but Lora will alternate one night with my wife and I, and the next with Dan and Kathy.
We arrive Monday evening, and are planning on taking a day trip on Tuesday to see the Ark. It's about an hour and a half drive each way, so we'll probably leave early in the morning. It'd be nice if there was a shuttle that went out, but I haven't found anything like that. We'll probably rent a van for the day.
If any of my online friends plan to attend, let me know - it'd be great to get together (for the gospel!)
I know I am already stoked about the conference!
posted by Daniel @
| John 3:16
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη απολλυηται αλλα εχη ζωην αιωνιον - John 3:16
My old mentor was leery of any pastor who would "go to the Greek" whenever something in the English didn't satisfy the particular nuance he felt was, or ought to be in a verse. Most people don't study biblical Greek, so the moment you "go to the Greek" to clarify a text, you are doing one of two things - you are expounding upon the full flavor of the word (in it's particular usage) to flesh out (for the English ear) what the Greek ear would have heard, but which may not be being represented fully by a single English word or phrase. Alternately, you're going to the Greek because a passage may be translated in more than one way - with more than one meaning - in English - and the decision of which translation to go with is informed by the context, and often by one's own theological (as opposed to hermeneutical) framework.
If you're my age, and spent any time in Sunday School as a youth - you've probably been asked to memorize either the New International or New King James translation of this passage. Today you might also be asked to memorize the verse, but a lot of churches are using the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Bible for memorizing verses. So I'll present those here to compare them with one another:
The biggest difference we see in these translations is how they translate the Greek adjective that modifies the word "Son". Jesus is alternately God's one and only Son as the NIV translates the word. He is God's only begotten Son in both the NKJV and the NASB, and he is simply God's only Son in the ESV.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [NIV]
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. [NKJV]
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [ESV]
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. [NASB]
The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe an only child. The son of the widow at Nain (Luke 7:12) was the widow's only son. The daughter of Jarius (Luke 8:42) and the demon possessed boy in Luke 9:38 is likewise the man's only son.
But it is the use in Hebrews 11:17 that gives us, I think, the most insight into the way this adjective could be used. In this verse, Isaac is called the monogenes son of Abraham. But you will recall that Abraham had already fathered a son (Ishmael) through Hagar. Obviously Isaac is neither only son of Abraham, nor the "one and only" son of Abraham.
Monogenes was used in three ways to describe one's child, either from the unique perspective of the father, the unique perspective of the mother, or the unique combination of the mother and father:
- Abraham's perspective: He had two sons, Ishmael (from Hagar) and Isaac from Sarah.
- Hagar's perspective: She had one son, (Ishmael)
- Sarah's perspective: She had one son (Isaac)
- Abraham + Hagar: They had one son together (Ishmael)
- Abraham + Sarah: They had one son together (Isaac)
The text of Hebrews 11:17, describes Isaac as Abraham's monogenes son - but Isaac was by no means Abraham's only (physical) son. Even though it would be a lot easier to interpret the meaning of this verse by ignoring the fact that the writer is describing this relationship entirely from Abraham's perspective by assuming the author mentions Abraham but intends in doing so to suggest a more compatible relationships (i.e. from the perspective of, say Abraham and Sarah together); I'd rather not rest on an interpretation that requires me to "correct" an assumed imprecision in the original text.
The Greek word monogenes is a compound word that combines mono (only) and genos (birth/kind). We don't really have a lot of trouble with the concept of something being the only representative of its kind, but we might not understand the idea of how "birth" could fit into the semantic range of a word like genos. In the book of Genesis (Genesis itself means origin, creation, or generation - i.e. that which is generated or born), the word genos is used (c.f. Genesis 1:24-25 for example) to describe the things God had created as having the capacity in themselves to procreate after their own kind (genos) - giving birth to something that is uniquely like themselves. Cows beget baby cows, and sheep beget lambs. Each "begetting" new life according to its kind (genos).
Hence older lexicons define monogenes as "only begotten" rather than as "only kind", - this because compounds adverbs that use with genes as one of the words are used to describe the nature rather than the source of their derivation.
Following this understanding, monegenes ought to translated in a way that captures the nature (begetting) rather than the source (kind) of the relationship. We might translate it fully, though awkardly in English as the "only begotten kind" of something.
Going back to Hebrews 11:17 - Isaac isn't the only son of Abraham, but he -is- the only son of Abraham's who would be inherit God's promise to Abraham. That this very promise is mentioned in that verse suggests to me that the author intended to convey the message that Isaac was the only son born of Abraham's faith in the promise of God.
We know from Hebrews 11:19 that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he was utterly convinced that in order for God to keep His to him (i.e. through Isaac Abraham's descendants would be named) God would have to raise up Isaac in order to keep His promise to Abraham. Abraham trusted God that much.
Well, we know the rest of the story - as Isaac was about to plunge the knife into his son, and angel stopped his hand, and lo - God provided a sacrifice in his son's stead. Abraham called that place Jehovah Jireh - God will provide - and that all happened on a particular mountain in the mountain range named Moriah (c.f. Genesis 22:2), which is probably the same Moriah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 3:1 - where Solomon built the first Temple at Jerusalem.
As an aside, no Christian should ignore the import of the imagery we are discussing here. Abraham was willing (on the strength of his trust in God's promise) - to offer up to God's the very son through whom God had promised to bless him. This is exactly what God would do with Christ - offer up His own Son (Jesus Christ) through whom God's promise to Abraham would ultimately be fulfilled. There on likely the very spot where the temple itself was built - was the Holy of Holies - were God's presence was understood by way of God's covenant with Israel - to remain - above the mercy seat which rested atop the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies. Do not forget how that great curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in two in the moment of our Lord's greatest accomplishment (His death) - where before the actual throne of God in heaven the pouring out of Christ's life expiated God's wrath towards all those who are in Christ through faith. As the way was opened in heaven, so the symbols upon the earth reflected it - in the tearing asunder of that great curtain that separated men from God.
Not withstanding, when we look again at John 3:16, we must ask ourselves, what does John intend to convey in using the word monogenes to describe the son-ship of Christ?
Where normally I prefer the ESV translation, in this case I find it wanting - for if John had intended to say convey the meaning that God had had only one Son - Jesus - he needed bother using such a specialized compound word as monogenes to say such. Recall that John was a fisherman - his writing style and grammar are simple compared to other writers in the New Testament. New students of biblical Greek are often made to begin reading John's writings for this very fact - they are less complicated grammatically than more the more learned writings of men like Luke and Paul. I am compelled on this point to believe that John would not only have been aware of a more simple way to say that Jesus was God's only Son, if that is all he intended to convey here.
That being my understanding - it follows that he chose this word to convey something more than that - which is why I feel the ESV's translation here is the least nuanced of the ones quoted above - and as such it is also the least precise. Don't get me wrong - in recent years there seems to be something of a silent revision going on when it comes to the notion of Christ being the only begotten son of God. I can only postulate that new scholars have been ingesting the philosophies of relativism since the cradle. What scholar, having unconsciously imbibed such a bias for the whole of his or her life will not want to step back from the former generation who collectively spoke to these matters in a way so narrow and precise it leaves no room for anyone with a contrary "truth" to be considered right.
It is not stretch for me to say that when scholarship becomes more scholarly, it doesn't necessarily become more true. There is an army of biblical scholars coming out of a large network of liberal seminaries all convinced from their education - such as it is - that homosexuality is no longer a sin, and never really was, convinced that women can and should be pastors, convinced that God has evolved into a better God than the previous Old Testament God. These are not B-team scholars - these are the best of their best - the movers and shakers, the people selling books increasing their influence in the world.
Maybe the reason that those lexicons which today are backing away from their former handling of monogenes is because we've been getting it wrong for a couple of thousand years. But I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, not to those who are rewriting what the church has believed for millennia, but rather with those who instead are alarmed by this trend.
That brings us back to the text of John 3:16.
Dismissing the ESV's translation of monogenes, I move onto the NIV translation "one and only".
This meaning falls apart harder in Hebrews 11:17, than the ESV translation. From Abraham's perspective - which is the perspective in that context - there is no way that Isaac is his one and only son. He is the one and only son born as the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham - but that is not only not hinted at in this rendering - it is rather denied as the natural reader will associate the uniqueness implied by "one and only" with the son-ship itself rather than the nature of that son-ship.
That Jesus (in our text) is the one and only son of God is certainly true - but the question isn't whether the words that appear in this text are true in and of themselves. If our translation injected the adjective "male" the noun "Son" - it would certainly be true - but that doesn't mean it is what the text is saying.
That leaves us with the NASB and NKJV translations which tell us that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. This translation - which I think is the best of the ones supplied here - means that Jesus is the only son of God's kind.
I want that to sink in. God did not create or make Jesus.
So what do I mean when I say begotten?
Let's start with this: God is (and has always been) a spirit. When we think of Fathering someone, it involves a chronological order - because we are created beings who exist in God's creation. Part of that creation is "time" - and we move through in such a way that every child is preceded in time by their parent. So it is quite natural for us to think (from a chronological perspective) that if God is the Father of Jesus, that means That God came first, and Jesus came some time after that. That is how our concept of being a parent works.
But God is not bound by time in that way, because He exists apart from it. Time is part of creation, and neither God nor His Son are bound by those laws that they knit into creation. It other words, when Jesus tells us that God is heavenly Father, we shouldn't anthropomorphize that into something that requires God the father to exist in isolation at some point, and then produce Jesus at another point, after which they both exist eternally. That doesn't make sense because chronological concepts like before and after have no meaning in a reality wherein time itself does not exist.
So when we say that God is the Father and Jesus the Son, we are not suggesting that God brought Jesus into being, or that Jesus did not exist at some point with God. What we are doing is taking what the scriptures say, and trying to understand them properly, given that the bible tells us that we are created, and God is not.
When we say that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, we mean that God and Jesus are both of the same kind - both are not just equally divine, both rather the are each full partakers of the same divinity. God the Father is not "more" God than Jesus, nor is God the Father a different God than Jesus. God did not bring Jesus into being - but the relationship between these two persons (in the Triune Godhead) is that God the Father (eternally) begets Christ the Son.
In other words God has always been the Father, Christ has always been the Son. The relationship is an anthropomorphism, as God the Father is a Spirit, and Jesus the Son is both a Spirit in eternity, a man who lived and died within the envelope of this creation - and is now the resurrected God-Man who is presently sitting at God's right hand - making intercession for His saints until God the Father places all of Christ the Son's enemies beneath Christ's feet.
For our purposes in John 3:16 - the apostle sums up in this one adjective what he laid out at the very start of His gospel - that Jesus was with God the Father in the beginning, and that Jesus was and is the same God, though not the same person.
If you get nothing else from this post - remember cats beget cats, and cows beget cows - and God begets God. God did not beget Adam - he created Adam. The word son, to the writers of scriptures, did not almost mean of the same flesh - but often meant of the same substance or kind. We are sons of Abraham, not because we are physically descended, but because we have the same kind of faith. The Pharisees and scribes who rejected Christ were sons of the devil - not physical sons but like the devil they rejected God's plan to go with their own. Jesus explains in Matthew 12:50, For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
Such usage at the time ought to inform our understanding of what John meant by referring to Christ as the only begotten Son of God - whatever was meant in this term that describes kinship - the kinship certainly included a similitude in purpose and thought; a likeness that further respects the full partaking of the exact same divine nature - and that without division or diminishment.
There are two other words I wanted to address in the passage - the words, "so" and "world".
Oὕτως, (outos) the Greek adverb that is translated above in John 3:16 as "so" in "for God so loved the world" either expresses degree (soooo much) or manner ("just so", or "in this way") or both. Without going into how the word translated as love is in the indicative, and how that affects our understanding, it is enough to say that the third option - where both the manner and the degree are intended - is probably the best approach for translating this word.
Unfortunately, the English word, "so" doesn't show us that John is really telling us that this is how God loved the world - it rather just suggest that God really, really loved the world - which confuses the meaning the author likely intended.
The best renditions I've seen follow the most common usage, with the understanding that the other usage is implied.
"For God loved the world in this way: He gave... etc"
If a translation is going to state one of these two aspects more clearly than the other - all things being equal - the most common rendering (describing manner rather than degree) ought to be the one we use.
I am persuaded however by the context, given that Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about the manner in which we are saved - that this is the clear and obvious purpose of this discussion - it follows that when our Lord has an opportunity to explain that God saves "in this way" in a conversation that is about "how God saves" - we should probably assume that Jesus intends to say, "in this way" - rather than that painting this verse as though Jesus was spontaneously talking about how much God loves us ("thiiiiiis much!").
God does love us, and that love is most clearly put on display in laying down your life for your friends, as our Lord himself explained to his closest disciples in John 15:13 (c.f. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends). Paul likewise tells us the same in Romans 5:8, (c.f. but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.) - both verses leave the magnitude of God's as testified fully in the naked reality of just how far God has gone to demonstrate that love. Neither of these other passages require an adverb to inflate the "bigness" of that love - and I wonder that if Christ was ever of the persuasion to inflate that love - why he would fail to do so when speaking to his disciples in John 15 about... basically how much God loves them and will care for them - but would put that meaning into his discussion with Nicodemus - who came for the very instruction ("how") that Christ was giving to him.
For me, even though the adverb in John 3:16 can mean manner, degree, or both. I think our Lord intended in that verse to portray only the manner in which God saves us. That fits the context, and it fits the fact that our Lord doesn't inflate his language on this point anywhere else - especially where one would expect him to do so if this was something that His message needed.
Yes, that means that I don't believe the our Lord was saying that God loved the world soooo much that he gave his only begotten son.
That the word κοσμον (Kosmos) translates as "world". I don't read to much into that. God loves his enemies, so that whether you're an enemy of God or not - God loves you. Since I don't believe the text is saying "God loved the world so much that he have his only begotten son" but rather that our Lord was telling Nicodemus that his understanding of the way God loved the world (by blessing the those who keep the law with long life and wealth, for instance) was entirely wrong - that that was not the way God shows love. This is how God loves the world - he sent his only begotten son Jesus so that whoever believes in Jesus shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
posted by Daniel @
| He has given us His Spirit
1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit [ESV]
Yesterday I explored 1 John 2:3-6, which speaks of one of the ways that we can know that we have come to know Christ: We are a witness to the obedience that Christ produces in us. If we do not have this witness, we do not know Christ.
Here John gives us another way of ascertaining whether or not we truly know Christ: the presence (or absence) of the Spirit of Christ within us.
John does not teach that we have come to know Christ because we can somehow "sense" the Spirit of Christ within us. His presence is not sensual (i.e. not something perceived by/through the senses). Our senses are natural and can only sense the natural, but His presence is spiritual. Our senses do not and cannot register the presence of the Spirit of Christ in a believer.
How then are we to know that we have the Spirit of Christ in us?
The answer is right in this chapter - and ends up being a very easy, and quite practical test of whether or not the Spirit of Christ is in you. Consider the truth of this statement, which precedes the quote above by a few verses:
1 John 4:7-8 - Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. [ESV]
In this text, we are told that the love that we are to have for one another is not something we generate, it is something that comes from God - such that John can say (and does say) that those who love one another know God, and those that do not, do not know God.
The word love is not describing the kind of affection our culture uses the (English) word love to describe. The text is not saying having an affection for other people comes from God. Love may be accompanied by affection, but it neither requires it nor depends upon it. The word for love does not describe an emotion - it describes a state of being. God is not "affection" but He is selflessly charitable - which is the better meaning behind the word.
The test here is not whether or not you feel affection one another - but whether or not you are selflessly charitable to one another - regardless of how you "feel". This kind of love comes only from God.
Consider the secular mindset when it comes to love. Love is the deepest, most sacred affection. You are willing to die for someone else because of it. The question is why? Well, because you really, really, want to. Why do you want to? Because you really, really like that person. You like them so much that it would hurt you to see them hurt - you'd rather hurt yourself than have them hurt.
Guess what? That is all (beginning to end) selfishness. Oh what great things we can coax ourselves to do because we selfishly are driven to avoid our own emotional pain. We want others to feel good because that makes us feel good - and we want to feel good, which is why we pursue it. If my motive (in whole or in part) is to avoid something personally unpleasant - or to experience some emotional satisfaction in seeing the results of my efforts - I am not acting selflessly - I am working to produce the effect I desire, by doing what it takes to produce that effect - and whatever benefit anyone else gets from the effort - I ultimately benefit too - and I am motivated to do it, at the root level, by the benefit I see in doing it.
The man who, planning a sweet surprise for his wife, arrives at home a few minutes before his wife is due, and rushes to place on the table, in view of the door, her favorite ice cream treat - that she is about to see when she comes home. That man may think he is serving his wife, but let her come home an hour late without a phone call - and we see what is really going on. As the minutes tick the husband begins to wonder where she is. Why isn't she home? He begins to get frustrated - even angry as the ice cream melts, and the minutes tick by. When she walks through the door an hour late, she doesn't find the man who was waiting to surprise her for the joy of her surprise - we find an angry man whose surprise was "ruined" by her tardiness, who wants to blame her for ruining "his" surprise.
Selfishness is often dressed up as selflessness if in serving ourselves we serve others. But love in the sense the Apostle is writing about is like that which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a,
"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." [ESV]
According to Paul (in the same passage) people could give away all their wealth and possessions - which would seem to be a selfless act of genuine love - but even such a thing as this could be done without love - that is, it could be done to serve yourself in some way. Even choosing to sacrifice your own life could be done without the love that Paul was writing about - and that John (in our text) is likewise describing.
Acts of selflessness spring from the Spirit of Christ within us, like "living" water from an artesian well. You don't draw water out of an artesian well - it is a spring that pours water out apart from any effort of your own. Since it does not originate in you, but in the Spirit of Christ, it is not something you muster up - it is something that you respond to. You're provoked by the Spirit of Christ within you to act - and the provocation is entirely alien to the "you" that you are at your core.
You're walking down the street and you see what looks to be a drunk sleeping face down in a pool of his own vomit. He is injured, and bloody, but you think - serves him right, he's a drunkard, and nothing I do for him now is going to change anything. He'll probably be violent if I wake him. I may get some of his blood or vomit on me if I wake him. There are other people around, one of them will check in on him - and you walk by - but somewhere inside you are provoked. Nothing about helping this person is inviting to your character, yet you feel a compulsion - which your character does its best to souse - to stop and see that all is well.
Helping when you are not going to get anything out of it - is what it means when Paul writes that love does not seek its own.
Our Lord used such an example in describing what it means to "love" your neighbor. There was no great affection for the man laying on the side of the road in either of those men who found themselves a witness to the man's needs that day. Not one of the three men in our Lord's parable was provoked by an affection for the man in need. But one man acted in love when he regarded the man as he would have regarded himself - and did for him what he would have done for himself had he found himself lying on the side of the road. That kind of love does not come from us - it comes from God.
That is what John tells us. If you find that kind of love in you, motivating you (however successful) to act, it is the love of God (i.e. God's love) in you through the Spirit of Christ - and it bears witness to the presence of Christ's Spirit in you.
If this isn't in you, then you don't know Christ, regardless of whatever you call yourself or whatever your faith means to you.
One word of caution: No one is perfectly consistent in loving others. We are still sinners, even though Christ is in us. That means that on one day the love of God in the Spirit of Christ within us may find some perfect expression in our willing obedience - but on other days, in our immaturity we may suppress our Lord's love within us as we capitulate to those sinful desires that remain within us.
Someone in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells ( i.e. a genuine Christian) is marked not by perfect success (but certainly by some success), in the same way that a good soldier is not marked by perfect success on the battlefield, but by holding their ground, and pressing onward no matter how poorly the battle is going. Christians do not abandon the war against sin in their life, because Christ in them does not - and cannot abandon that war. The person who abandons the war against sin, is not a Christian, and never was.
That is what it mean to have the Spirit of Christ - it means we have the Spirit of Him who over came both sin and death in this world. Just as the man dressed in a life preserver may be swamped by the waves of the tempest he endures - yet no matter how many times he is thrust beneath the surface, yet on account of that which is preserving his life - he surfaces again and again - not because of his own strength, but because He is clothed in someone who has overcome death, death no longer has dominion over him. Though he falls a dozen times, he rises again.
posted by Daniel @
| Obedience to the Lord
In 1 John 2:3-6 we read:
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. [ESV]
Not sure you're a Christian? Here is the acid test: Are you keeping what Christ has commanded?
It (morbidly) fascinates me how many readers consider themselves to be sufficiently keeping the commandments (plural) of Christ - who couldn't name even a half dozen of our Lord's commandments off the top of their head.
Make no mistake, John wants to assure his readers that they are Christian - but John doesn't lay as a foundation of their assurance such fluffy nothings as having earnestly prayed a prayer, or having assented to the truths of the gospel. Believing that the gospel is true doesn't save anyone - that just means they've been enlightened. Judas was certainly enlightened - but that enlightenment didn't mean he was saved. You also may be enlightened - that is, you may believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is the Messiah, and that salvation can only be found in Him. That is certainly the good news that leads to salvation - but salvation isn't had simply by acknowledging the news to be true.
The assurance John directs us to look for is practical - are we obeying Christ or not? If not, we aren't Christians.
Can you (off hand) name even a dozen things Christ commands in the New Testament? This isn't a school test - but good gravy - how can you know if you're obeying Christ's commands if you can't even name a few?
To help you out, let's go over a few.
Christ commands you to Repent:
Matthew 4:17: From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [ESV]
The word translated from the Greek into English as repent literally means to change your thinking and/or behavior. The problem with that definition is that most people stop with that and think that all you need to do in order to repent is change your thinking and/or behavior.
Luke 13:3: No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. [ESV]
But the repentance our Lord calls us to, is not a change in thinking or behavior "in general"- it is a very specific call to repentance - the call is for sinners to repent (c.f. Luke 5:32).
If we were not so collectively sluggish in our understanding, I could probably leave it at that - but a great many people out there think of sin as "doing something bad" rather than, "rebelling against God's rule over them" - so that when they see that sinners are "called to repent" - they conclude that Jesus commands them to "change their thinking and behavior" about doing bad things, and thus start doing good things.
But because sin is rebellion against God - the repentance you and I are called to is one that involves changing our thinking and behavior as it pertains to God's rule over us. Said simply, the repentance that we are called to is a radical departure from our former way of life - where we did whatever seemed right to us - now we are called to not only know the will of God (c.f. Ephesians 5:18) but to do seek it out and to do it.
Any Christian who neglects this call to an ongoing life of repenting - that is a life of learning from the scriptures what God requires of us, and committing ourselves with our whole heart to doing his will over and against (i.e. instead of) our own will - is by no means keeping this (foundational!) command of Christ.
This next command is just another way of framing the command above: Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.
It helps to understand at least this much concerning the Kingdom of God:
Matthew 6:33: But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.[ESV]
Luke 17:20-21: "Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” [ESV]
Which ever kingdom you were born into - that was your kingdom, and it's king was your king. The Kingdom of God is not an earthly Kingdom - it has no borders, and it's citizens are citizens because they have chosen to accept the Lordship of Christ - that is, they have chosen to obey Christ rather than to obey themselves in whatever they choose to do.
Thus to seek Christ's kingdom is to seek to Christ's rule in your life. Our Lord puts this plainly in Luke 6:46, "Why do you call me Lord and not do what I tell you?" [ESV] - you are not in the kingdom, nor are you seeking to be in the Kingdom, if you are not doing actively seeking to obey what Christ calls you to do.
Christianity isn't about making God happy with the things we do (like going to church, calling our selves Christians, and maybe even reading our bible and praying) - it is about willingly making ourselves subject to all that Christ commands of us. Those who are in the Kingdom of Christ willingly subject themselves to the rule of Christ - going so far as to seek out what Christ would have us do.
Next up is to: Deny Ourselves / Take Up Our Crosses/ and to Follow Christ.
Once again - this is practically the same as the command to repent or the command to seek first the kingdom of God.
Luke 9:23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. [ESV]
Matthew 10:38, And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.[ESV]
Mark 8:34, And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. [ESV]
Denying yourself means you are no longer the ruler of yourself. You stop pursuing what you want as a requisite step in pursuing what Christ wants for you. You stop seeking for yourself the things you want to get from this world, and start seeking what Christ desires you to do. This is what Paul means by putting to death the deeds of the body (c.f. Romans 6) - it means you stop living for yourself and the things that you want - To deny yourself is to live selflessly (serving others) rather than selfishly (serving yourself).
If you're not seeking this - trying to do this in your life - you aren't obeying the commands of Christ.
Taking up your cross.
Jesus (like every other condemned prisoner) was forced to carry his own cross to the site of his execution (Our Lord was too weak to carry the cross at one point, and Simon of Cyrene carried it for him). The imagery of carrying your cross perfectly portrays doing something you certainly don't want to do - doing that work which assists your own demise. Not that Christ demands you to kill your own body (suicide is murder, and you are not commanded to murder yourself) - but rather in the qualifying sense supplied - to deny yourself the liberty to do as you please even as a condemned criminal is not doing his own will in carrying the very cross upon which his life is about to be spent to the place of execution.
Just as Jesus did not come to live his life according to his own desires, but lived in utter obedience to the will of God his Father - so we are called to follow Christ's example and live our lives in obedience to Christ, denying our own wills in order to obey the will of Christ.
That's just 3 commands. -- How're you doing so far?
Listen I am not inclined to coddle believers as some people are.
It is plain from the scriptures that some of us who think we are saved are not really saved. How do we know we're saved? By the evidence of our salvation - one such evidence John gives us in the passage quoted above in 1 John 2 - Simply answer the question put to us - are we keeping the commandments of Christ?
If we've truly repented, truly sought the rule of Christ in our life - truly war against our own desires, that we might not be slaves to our own will, but submitting ourselves to the will of Christ by denying our own will, taking up our cross, and following our Lord in the path of obedience He has walked before us -- I'd say we have good reason to be assured of our faith.
If on the other hand we don't see this pattern in our life - but tell ourselves in its absence that it is okay, because our sins are under the blood of Christ - because we said a prayer once, and having been enlightened by the truth we have begun attending a church and our lives are a little more moral now than they were before - we have no real ground for any confidence in our own salvation - and any coddling I might add for those saints who are merely struggling in this area - would be used by those tares who would grasp at my words only to fortify themselves all the more in their neglect of our great salvation.
I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded - not by the intensity of my surety, or the integrity of my most earnest opinion about how sincere I am in wanting to be a Christian - but rather by the such evidence as John tells me to look for - I say, I am persuaded that my Lord is able to keep to the end what I've committed unto Him. My persuasion rests not on what I have done, but on the evidence of what is being done in me.
I want you to be able to say that, because you also are keeping the commandments of Christ - not in order to prove to yourself that you are saved, or in order to get saved - but because you are enlightened, and have come to know that the response to enlightenment is obedience - and have found yourself desiring to - even always returning to - an obedience that you cannot long depart from.
posted by Daniel @
| Be Fruitful and Multiply - Part IV (How Many Children Should We Have?)
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Consider these simple questions in the light of this passage:
“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Matthew 6:25-ff [ESV]
• Who feeds the birds of the air every day?
• By extension, who feeds the bird's children?
• In the same way, who feeds you every day?
• And who feeds your children each day?
A lot of you reading will have heard that "Jehovah Jireh" is a name that means, the Lord will provide. It isn't a proper name of God - but is often quoted as though it was. It is actually the name given by Abraham to the place where God called Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering (c.f. Genesis 22).
When Isaac, carrying the bundle of wood for the burnt offering asked his father where the sacrifice was, Abraham answered, that the Lord would provide a sacrifice. In Hebrews 11:17-19, we get some idea of what was going through Abraham's mind at the time. God had promised Abraham that through his son Isaac Abraham's offspring would be named. Abraham stood convinced that God was going to keep that promise, and that meant even if Isaac died, God would certainly restore him life in order to keep His promise with Abraham.
The imagery there cannot be lost on a Christian. The very place where this happened was named by Abraham, "The Lord will provide!" (Jehovah Jireh). In 2 Chronicles 3, we learn that this very place where Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, but where the Lord intervened and provided a sacrifice - was where King Solomon eventually built the temple. All of which foreshadows the sacrifice of Christ whom the Lord provided as our sacrifice.
Christians, we are told are children of Abraham because they share the of faith of Abraham who believed God and trusted God to provide.
It is ... unthinkably sad, that we find so many today, willing to call themselves Christians, who nevertheless have such weak, pathetic faith. I don't stand above such people. I am the poster child for weakness and pathetic faith. But I do believe that what my Lord has said, is true. I am not being fed daily, except by the providence of God. Whatever I have, I have for His glory, and not for my own comforts or pleasure.
Would that I were perfect in all that I said and did, I could regale you with a wonderful history of my deep faith and the mighty deeds wrought therein. But I nothing. Every victory my Lord has managed to bring into my life, I have obstructed and hindered to the best of my ability - to my eternal shame, but to His self-same eternal glory.
I didn't want to have children because I was afraid I would be abusive to them in the manner in which I was raised. I believed that such cycles were inescapably repeatable, and when my wife announced our first pregnancy, I discovered I was too weak a man to divorce her as I felt I ought - that a better man might raise my son to be a better man than I could ever raise him to be. I say I was too weak. That was the romantic sacrifice I thought I should do - to save my son from the legacy of my own abuse.
But I couldn't bear the thought of leaving my wife, and so I stayed in the marriage, certain that I would "ruin" my son's life, and all for entirely selfish reasons of not wanting to be apart from my wife. I was a Christian in as much as I believed the gospel - but I had such a beggarly faith, I wasn't able to move a molehill, much less the mountain of the entirely secular life I had chosen to backslide into.
I didn't know that the Lord would use my son to draw me to himself. I didn't know that my son would again and again be the catalyst that cast me upon the Lord in all my wretched need. I could never have imagined how the Lord would use my children as they came, to humble me again and again. I learned to own my mistakes, and ask forgiveness. I am a thousand times better a husband and father than I would ever have been - though I tell you honestly, I am not half the man I ought to be by now. But for God's grace; but for God's grace.
I have proven God in my life, or rather God has proven Himself to me in my life. I am not like some of you reading, wondering if God is real, or if God ever answers prayers. God has so thunderously changed me, and shown me the beauty of His truth, that I cannot play games with myself about whether or not He is real or whether He is there. One look at me followed by a glance at my children will tell you all you need to know about the profound grace and work of God. I often think that my greatest contribution to God's glory will be that God could use someone like me to produce someone like my kids - whom I adore all the more for their genuine faith, and the sweetness I find in them.
That God could squeeze such as these from such a prince of wickedness as I have been, and would otherwise be - is all the testimony I need to remind myself of God' very real presence and provision. I've felt a mountain of hatred lifted from my shoulders with such clarity that I couldn't believe it had ever been there without my noticing it before. To be set free from such life long bonds - well. I could go on and on. But I want you to know that I trust God.
That is the foundation upon which my family came to be. A lot of Christians today would deny themselves children thinking that in doing so they are securing a better, more prosperous life for themselves, but I will tell you that a sad thing. My children have been God's blessing in my life so thoroughly and profoundly, I can't explain it to anyone who doesn't already know exactly what I mean. I am not describing a father's love for his children - every father can describe that - I am describing God's love for me in giving me the gift of being the father of my children. In using my children to drive me to my knees before him in humility and my need. To bring me to the certainty that I have nothing and can offer nothing to my children but what I receive from God.
Oh what a loss, what a sad and horrible loss it is to watch the children in this generation opt out of parenting, so that they can "live in the now" - they don't know what they are doing, because the blessing they are avoiding is so inconceivable, they cannot imagine it, and so they don't want it.
The bottom line for how many kid should a Christian have? As many as God will bless them with.
Is it sinful to refuse the blessing of the Lord by practicing birth control? Almost certainly!
If the reason for them not wanting to have kids is so that they can pursue something selfish, or because they don't trust God to provide for them, or don't want their standard of living to go down, or whatever. That's not a biblical reason - that's just selfishness.
There aren't many "selfless" ways to deny God in what He would like to do for you. My wife doesn't want to have any more children. We have five children, aged 6 to 19, but during my wife's last pregnancy her congenital heart condition acted up in a frightening way, and we decided that it was time to stop having children.
We weren't on the same page however. I wasn't sure what the Lord would have us do. Was I over reacting? She'd had this condition all her life, why now? It had acted up, but never like this. I was torn - I wanted more children, and in my selfishness, I felt that my wife would surely be able to produce a few more kids before this *really* became an issue. I wish I could say that this was some fleeting thought - some madness that slipped into my head, and was dismissed immediately, but no. I downplayed the whole thing to myself in order to hold onto my perfect picture of what our family ought to eventually look like.
When it became clear to me that my wife was not being evil in wanting to be there the mothering of all our children as they grew up; and again, that her unwillingness to risk her life on the altar of my familial expectations wasn't some secret way of trying to control my life, and dash my dreams - that is, when I finally came to see that my expectations were entirely selfish, and unloving, I realized that my trust that God would surely bless us if my wife became pregnant again - but like person who sees trouble coming and willfully ignores it. I was not super faithful or wise, I was selfish, and worse, I was convincing myself that it was a bigger, better faith on my part to trust the Lord with my wife's life in our next pregnancy. Surely he wouldn't take my wife if we were obedient in having as many children as humanly possible, right?
I've learned since then that I was not being a prudent man in that I was ignoring a real and present danger such that rather than hide my wife and I from it I was all for going further down an obviously dangerous road - and was bound to suffer for it (c.f. Proverbs 22:3).
It is enough to say that sometimes, having babies is dangerous, and you have to make a choice to be prudent and avoid the danger - even if that means forgoing a blessing, or going on like a simple minded person and perhaps suffering later for it. On Judgment day we'll learn about all our errors and wrong motives. Until then we should walk in the light we have.
My point is it would next to impossible to give a hard list of when it is "not sinful" and when it is "sinful" to practice birth control, but whatever list we could come up with - it will all roll back to a question of motive. Few people are honest enough with themselves to quickly discern their own motives in a matter. We always think we're doing what we do for the right reasons, until we're shown the truth.
What about when a husband and wife disagree on when to stop having kids?
Well, that can't happen when both husband and wife are seeking the Lord. Like instruments that are tuned to the same fork will be in tune with one another - a husband and wife who disagree on when it is time to stop are a husband and wife that are not seeking the Lord together for the answer.
Don't mistake me. I don't mean to suggest that they aren't praying about the same things etc. I am saying that one or both of them is not really seeking the Lord's will (more often than not it is both) You can be sure that you're the one in the wrong if you feel the Lord has given you peace about your decision, because that just dumb. the Lord hasn't given peace to you if you're married and at odds with your spouse on such an important decision. No, the Lord has given you strife. If you feel you're at peace in your strife you're a fool, and if you feel that the matter is settled because it is settled for you - your a fool also. As long as there is disagreement, then there is no peace, and whatever peace you feel is a very false peace.
Decisions like this will often divide us before they draw us together - that's because we often need to see how broken we are before we're willing to be fixed.
But My spouse and I cannot agree on this!
Don't worry about it. You don't need to agree with one another, you just need to agree with God. If you do that you'll do well, and if one or both of you can't do that, the problem is bigger/deeper than a question of how many children you ought to have.
That's my serious answer.
Listen: I tremble before the authority of God's word. I am so hesitant to offer advice on such matters, lest in offering advice, I give an impression that runs contrary to the word of God. God's word does not explicitly state that birth control is a sin, but it also doesn't say anything that makes it sound Okay either.
That tells me that God has given enough information elsewhere in the scriptures that an honest seeker of his will ought to be able to infer what God would want them to do in such and such a situation. We have, for example a great deal that is said about living for one's self - which is always sinful, and putting the needs of others above yourself - which is selfless and what we're all called to do. Even with only that much I find myself flailing to come up with any possible argument that would make it okay to set your life and what you want out of it, above the lives of the children the Lord intends to give you, but you refuse to let live. How can anyone justify denying the children that God would give to them, the life that he would have otherwise given them?
That's why I hold to the thought that it is the Lords will for you to have as many children as He would have given you. If having children puts one of you at risk - then you need to be honest with that. But if you're just thinking you want to get more money (leisure, life experiences, ) in life than kids - you're not thinking like a Christian at all, and this quick series isn't going to do much for you.
What I want you to get out of this is the fact that you need to seek the will of the Lord as is found in His word. Seek the counsel of godly, bible-believing and honoring saints, convince yourself from the scriptures of what God would have you do and do it.
Perhaps our Lord can summarize my thoughts, which all water down to His words from 1 John 2:15,
"Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world the love of the father is not in him." [ESV]
Part I |
Part II |
posted by Daniel @
| Be Fruitful and Multiply - Part III (Is Birth Control A Sin?)
|Let's begin the discussion where a lot of people do - with the sad history of Onan.
Onan's brother Er was a wicked fellow - so wicked in fact that God Himself put Er to death. Er was married to Tamar at the time, and under the Mosaic Law, Onan was expected to marry Er's widow Tamar, and raise up children for Onan's brother's inheritance.
The point of this "Levirate" marriage, was for Onan to give children to Tamar, whom she could raise up on and in her husband's (i.e. Er's, not Onan's) inheritance.
Normally, Onan would not have allowed to marry his brother's widow. Had Tamar been pregnant with with Er's child, Onan would not have been required or even permitted to marry her. This was a special provision that God made to allow a childless widow to conceive children in her husband's house through the seed of his near relative.
So Onan took Tamar as a man takes a woman - but instead of impregnating her as was his duty (and as was the only reason he was allowed to take her into his bed), he spilled his seed on the ground. God didn't like that - since it was a perversion of what he had commanded. This wasn't about Onan providing Tamar with the conjugal rights of a husband - it was about Onan providing Tamar with children - and in sidestepping that obligation while partaking of his brother's wife - Onan sinned, and God put him to death even as he had put Er to death. It's all there in Genesis 38.
Some conclude from this, that Onan was put to death because God hates birth control in general. If that is true, this text would agree with it - but it certainly wouldn't prove it. Onan was put to death for denying his brother the very offspring this Levirate marriage obligated him to produce.
I don't (or I shouldn't) need to explain how and why Onan earned the death he received. The question before us is whether he would have received the same penalty had he and his wife been practicing withdrawal as a form of birth control (by agreement) in their marriage.
That is really the question: Is it "okay" with God for Christians to thumb their noses at God's blessing (children are an inheritance and blessing from the Lord)?
Some would say that we are commanded in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply and say that therefore we ought to answer every opportunity (in marriage) to produce children, until such time that we are no longer able to do so. But as I believe I have shown in the first post int his series - that passage isn't quite the command it is propped up to be, but is rather a blessing upon mankind spoken by the Lord.
Lacking a definitive go-to verse that compels us to have as many children as possible, one might turn to passages in scripture that imply the will of God in this situation. I am thinking of Romans 1, where Paul writes about how creation itself teaches us what the will of God is. In this case we might say that everything about having sex suggests the purpose of sex is two fold: pleasure and procreation. Paul instructs those who would otherwise burn with passion to marry, in order that they may avoid sinfully quenching their passions outside of marriage. Obviously marriage is the place where our God intends for us to quench these passions - but what about when we don't want our passions to produce children?
This is the rubber meets the road part of the discussion. It's a trivially easy matter to condemn Abortion (from a biblical world view) because the scriptures are crystal clear about who is and who is not an image bearer of God - and whether or not it is okay to murder one. In the same way it is just as clear and straightforward to condemn any abortifacient forms of birth control such as the pill, the patch, injections, day after pills or IUDs.
I believe the use of any abortifacient form of birth control is sinful. Let me qualify that. A young, chaste woman who experiences hormone related depression, etc. may well benefit from taking the pill - not as a form of birth control, but as a way of regulating/stabilizing her hormone levels. Taking the pill to regulate hormone levels is not the same as taking the pill in order to have sex and avoid pregnancy. I don't believe it is sinful to regulate hormone levels if your levels are out of whack and making you depressed/suicidal. If you're using the pill to regulate hormone levels you should abstain from sex altogether because even if you use another form of birth control (condoms, withdrawal, etc.), they could fail, and you could possibly become pregnant, and abort the baby.
You might scoff at the notion of abstinence while on the pill as "overkill" - but only if you think that its okay to play the odds with someone else's life. Sober Christians - honest ones who love God's word - will avoid these kinds of risks like the sin they are.
I think that anyone who is using an abortifacient method of birth control is sinning, whether they end up murdering their children or not. The fact that they are willing to take that chance speaks volumes about where they are truly at.
But when we get away from those methods, and look into methods that, when they fail, do not destroy what is conceived - what about those methods? Is it sinful to get your tubes tied, or to get a vasectomy. What about withdrawal?, the rhythm method? Condoms? etc.
I hope to answer these questions in the final post, Part IV (How many children should we have?)
Part I |
Part II |
posted by Daniel @
| Be Fruitful and Multiply - Part II (The Consequences of Conception)
|In the majority of US states, a stillborn child is issued a birth certificate and a death certificate. This postmortem recognition of their having been a human child flies in the face of the legal definition of a human being as it pertains to abortion laws. In order to destroy a human in the womb, we must dehumanize that human - regard them as "not yet" a person. Even as it was in Nazi Germany - it is okay to kill someone whom the law doesn't recognized as a human being.
I think that life beings at conception. I think that way because it is both obvious, and because the bible makes it clear that the life of an unborn human is nevertheless a human life. Under the Mosaic Law, the penalty for harming or killing an unborn child was the same as it was for anyone else - a life for a life, an eye for an eye etc. For the Christian who believes the bible to be true - an unborn child is a human being who enjoys all the rights afforded to everyone else - including the right to life.
When does that life begin? It begins when that life was conceived. No one denies that life begins at conception - what people debate is when the life that is there qualifies as "human".
For the Christian - the kind of Christian who believes the bible to be entirely true and authoritative - abortion is murder. To that kind of Christian, an unborn person is someone who has been created in God's image. God gave man dominion over all other creatures, such that we can kill and eat some, and even destroy those whom we regard as dangerous or simply pests. But we aren't allowed to kill one another because other people - like ourselves - are made in God's image. We don't have the right to kill another human being - even our own children. We find out why in Genesis 9:6, where we read, "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." [ESV]
Everyone who purposely takes a human life is guilty of murder, because we - even our unborn children - are created in God's image. When God commanded the Israelites not to commit murder, it was a command to not end the life of anyone bearing the image of God.
All of this is to say that if you believe the scriptures are true, and submit yourself to what is taught therein (rather than try and find a way to make it "mean" something other than what it clearly says), you cannot intentionally murder your children in utero or otherwise.
So when we talk about contraceptives no intellectually honest Christian who believes that life begins at the moment of conception can utilize any form of birth control that could potentially destroy a human zygote (a fertilized egg).
That rules out such contraceptives as:
Oral/hormonal based contraceptives such as "the pill", "the patch" or injections such as "Depo-provera": The pill prevents pregnancies in three ways:
• It prevents ovulation,
• It thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and
• it thins the lining of the uterus, which makes implantation less likely if fertilization does occur
These contraceptives are sold on the promise that they prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. While that is true in the sense that the hormone treatment does disrupt the ovulation cycle (no egg means no pregnancy), but women are often unaware that ovulation still happens it just doesn't happen as often as it would have. Depending on the individual ovulation may occur anywhere between 2%-65% of the time. If an egg is produced, and fertilized, the human life that is created - may not be able to implant in the uterus because the pill thins out the uterus lining - effectively preventing the pregnancy by denying the fertilized egg purchase in the womb.
Intrauterine Device (IUD) - An IUD is a small specially shaped foreign object that is placed inside the uterus by a medical professional. It works in two ways:
• It prevents fertilization by keeping sperm from entering the Fallopian tubes, and
• It thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur.
Similar to the hormone based contraceptives: fertilized eggs may be hindered from implanting in the uterus causing these to be expelled with the next period, instead of implanted.
The Day after Pill - given that it takes 5-6 days for a zygote to implant in the uterus - this pill is not so much about preventing fertilization as it is about preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. It works similarly to the other hormone based contraceptives.
Conception ≠ Pregnancy?
Some argue that until the fertilized egg is implanted in the mother, the mother isn't pregnant. I think that is very true, in a narrow technical sense. The mother is still a "mother" but her child hasn't yet been implanted in the lining of her uterus - so she isn't technically pregnant until or unless the egg is implanted in her womb.
That thought emboldens some to argue that the mother isn't yet the mother until the fertilized egg is implanted in her uterus. If it isn't implanted in her uterus, she isn't pregnant, and if she isn't pregnant - taking a hormone or using a device changes the lining of her uterus in a way that makes implantation of a fertilized egg unlikely - then this does not (technically) represent an abortion - since the fertilized egg is expelled in the nex cycle, having been unable to implant in the uterus.
The question for any Christian who regards the word of God as having authority in their life is not when does killing your child become abortion, before or after implantation. That is a pointless argument. It doesn't matter to the Christian whether the term "abortifacient" can be applied or not, the question isn't about what the proper term for killing your baby is at that point - it is about whether or not you're causing the death of the child that has been conceived in your womb, by taking hormones that kill the child before you even know when or if you became pregnant.
The question about whether or not Christians can get abortions is not really one that any Christian who holds the bible as authoritative would seriously consider. Even in the Didache - that first century summary of the apostolic teachings - abortion is called out by name as something God forbids. The word translated in Galatians 5 as "sorcery" - was used in secular writings of the time to describe the use of drugs in producing abortions etc. - it is the same word as is used in the Didache - strongly suggesting what ought to be obvious to everyone who names the name of Christ - killing your unborn child is a sin.
The question of whether or not a Christian is allowed to practice a form of birth control that can cause the life that is formed in the womb to be extinguished is likewise not a very serious question for serious Christians. Anything that could possibly cause the death of anyone else is not something we can condone - especially if the only reason we would condone it is to enjoy the pleasures of sex while avoiding the consequences of conception.
The question then is whether or not a Christian is allowed to practice birth control at all? I'll hopefully answer that in the Part III - is Birth Control a sin?
Part I |
Part III |
posted by Daniel @
| Be Fruitful and Multiply - Part I
|On the fifth day (c.f. Genesis 1:22) of creation God said to the newly created birds of the air and all that newly swarmed in the seas, to be fruitful and multiply. There was at least a male and female of every type and species of flying creature, and this text tells us that it was God's intention for all of these to produce offspring of their own kind and fill their respective places upon the earth.
We don't look back at Genesis 1:22 very often, because no one cares that God blessed the birds and fish in saying, "Be fruitful and multiply". I use the word bless there because that is the word the scriptures use ("God blessed them [i.e. birds/fish], saying, 'be fruitful and multiply...'").
This was a blessing, and not a command in that sense. God established that natural law by and through which these these creatures were blessed - they would be fruitful and they would multiply. In being fruitful and multiplying, they were not trying be fruitful or multiply in obedience to a command - they were behaving according to the nature they had been blessed to receive from God.
I mention that because a mere 6 verses (and one day) later, comes the verse that is typically pulled up whenever birth control or family planning is discussed amongst Christians. In that verse, God likewise blesses Adam and Eve with the same blessing, "Be fruitful and multiply..."
I am led by the text to conclude that whatever we should expect from the birds and fish with regards to this blessing, we should likewise expect from mankind - no less, and certainly no more. Putting it another way, I do not think this blessing is so like a command that it requires our volitional acquiescence - I think of it as the created order. We are able to beget children after our own kind and all things being equal, we end up doing that quite naturally, and so we have filled the earth - those who have heard of this blessing, and again those who have not.
If this is a command to be obeyed by all, then it is the duty of every person (and especially of Christians) to do whatever it takes to have as many children as humanly possible. Since it is sinful to have any kind of sex outside of marriage, and God would never command us to do anything that requires sinful behavior - that becomes a command for every one of us to marry, and produce children - as many children as we are able - in our marriage.
That's what you do with one of God's commands - you follow it fully, with your whole heart, and you don't give up on doing what God has commanded you because it is tiring or difficult for you. You don't do it only if circumstances seem favorable for it - you do it even if you are convinced that all your children than you have will die in childbirth - because God commanded you to do that, and didn't give you a pass because it seems difficult to you or pointless.
But if this passage means that, then someone like the Apostle Paul - or even Jesus, would be a sinner, since neither of these felt compelled by this "command" to pursue the life necessary to keep it. People who treat Jesus special when it comes to commands, might excuse our Lord because His peculiar status as the Son of God must somehow excuse Him from such expectations - but surely Paul should have been working overtime to get himself a wife, so he could start being fruitful and multiplying as the command stood.
But that isn't what Paul did - in fact he counseled people that it was better to serve the Lord as a single person (rather than a married one) because in remaining free from the responsibilities of marriage, you were more available for the work of ministry. Paul would have been encouraging people to sin.
I conclude therefore that the text of Genesis 1:28 is not a command in that sense, but the blessing it is laid out as. It is a blessing that we are able by God's decree to be fruitful and multiply. "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth, blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them..." - Psalm 127:4-5a [ESV]. Children are indeed a blessing, and the man who fills his house with children is surely blessed above the man who selfishly (or otherwise) fills his house with treasures that will perish when this life ends.
My next post (Part II) is going to address the consequences of conception.
Part II |
Part III |
posted by Daniel @