- - Endorsed
- - Indifferent
- - Contested
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
| Are sinless, new-born babes "righteous"?
Consider the following verses:
Deuteronomy 24:16, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" [NASB].
Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." [NASB]
Ezekiel 18:20, "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." [NASB]
If we summarize the common thread in these verses, what we get is that:
 God does not hold children guilty for their parents sins, and
 people are only held guilty for their own sins.
Yet there are other passages in the Old Testament, that seem to suggest that God does in fact hold children guilty for the sins of their parents:
Deuteronomy 5:9b, "...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," [NASB]
Exodus 34:7b, "yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." [NASB]
Numbers 14:18, "The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations." [NASB]
Some see these texts as contradicting one another. In some places God refuses to find children guilty of their parent's sins, and in other places God visits the sins of the parents upon the children. Isn't that a contradiction?
It isn't. The first three verses are talking about who gets the death penalty for sins that require the death penalty, and the answer is that only the one who commits the sin gets the death penalty, no one else is to be put to death for that sin. The latter verses are not talking about how to apply the law of God, but are talking about the larger consequences of a person's sin. A father's sin will affect his descendants even to three or four generations. The alcoholic, the child/spouse abuser, etc. give clear testimony to such a truth.
It is right to reason therefore that Adam alone will be judged for the sin in the garden, and not us. But even as this is so, we (the children of Adam) bear the main consequence of Adam's sin: ...Death.
We tend to think of light and darkness as opposites, but they aren't. Light exists as a real, measurable thing, but darkness doesn't. What we think of darkness is actually just the lack of light. It isn't a thing, it is the absence of a thing.
Death is like that. Life is something, death is simply the lack of that something. Adam's sin did not "create" death as if death was some new thing. Adam's sin brought with it a separation from God (who alone is the source of all life). To be separated from God thus, is to be separated from life.
Adam alone will be judged for his sin, but one earthly consequence of Adam's sin was that Adam was driven out of God's presence, or said another way, Adam was separated from life eternal. Said a third way: death was brought into the world through Adam's sin.
This separation from life is the reality that every descendant of Adam is born into. We all experience it as a direct consequence of Adam's sin. We do not inherit this through our DNA (as some may imagine), or from our physical parents, because it isn't a "thing" and as such isn't passed on from father to son, it is the lack of a thing - a lack that defines everyone's reality. We are born into a vacuum that Adam's sin provoked, and we experience because this lack persists even to our day.
So when we speak of the judgment for our sins, we shouldn't be condemning anyone for Adam's sin, least of all sinless infants. They are no more culpable for Adam's sin than they are culpable for the sins of their immediate parents. They do however inherit the consequences of God's judgment against Adam because those consequences affect all of us. We are born into a world that has been already been severed from the life of God, as it were, and lacking a connection to this life, We are born incapable of expressing that righteousness which can only flow from the life of God.
In other words, every babe that has been born under Adam's curse, has been separated from the life (and therefore the righteousness) of God. Thus a new-born, sinless babe is a strange thing, since it lacks the righteousness that can only be found in God, and yet it also lacks any personal sin, having not yet rebelled against the rule of God by reason of being incapable of doing so.
Here we pause to order our thoughts as some readers may have an understanding of righteousness that doesn't lend itself well to the explanation I am giving above. So allow me a moment to expand the point a bit.
Sin is, at its core, an act of rebellion against the rule of God. A new born babe has not (yet) rebelled against God, and as such we can say that the new born infant is sinless. In order to be righteous, however, the new born babe would also have to be obedient to God, and that obedience would have to flow from the only source of righteousness (God Himself). The proverbial babe is as incapable of expressing a righteousness that he or she has been cut off from, as you or I would be. Thus a new born babe although sinless, is by no means righteous. Since there is no middle ground, a new born babe is thus, "unrighteous" - meaning, incapable of expressing the righteousness that can only be found in God.
Some readers may believe that it is possible for a fallen person to do something righteous, and this is likely because they think that deeds can be righteous in and of themselves - that if the devil Himself gave alms, it would be an act of righteousness, well, maybe not the devil because he is so sneaky, but an otherwise "nice" person would certainly be doing something "righteous" if he or she gave alms to the poor. Right? Isaiah answers that question for us, or rather God Himself does, through the writings of Isaiah when he records for us the fact that all of our righteousnesses (that is, all the "good" things we do) are as filthy rags to God. To put it plainly: every single act of righteousness we can do is in fact -not- righteous. What we do, we do to serve ourselves in some capacity or other.
An example I like to give of this is the kindly father who brings ice cream home one hot, summer day in order to treat his family. He daydreams about the joy on their faces as he buys it, and though no one is home when he gets home, he anticipates that they will all arrive home within moments, and so he heightens his own joy by thinking to surprise them, and sets out bowls all around, and setting the ice cream scooper at the ready on the table, right there beside the ice cream, and in this way commences to wait for the joy of giving this treat to his family!
For the first ten minutes every noise heightens his joy, is that the key in the lock? No? Oh. But soon, and certain after twenty minutes, he begins to change - he is annoyed. Where are they? Shouldn't they be home by now. As the clock ticks, and the ice cream begins to soften, and then melt - the tension within him grows, and grows...
When they finally walk in (two hours later!), the man who greets them is not the joy filled man bent on some act of kindness - he is a simmering volcano, trying his best to let everyone know just how awful they are for spoiling his surprise. To the outside observer, his original scheme seemed selfless and kind, but time itself began to peel off this deception. The primary reason he did this was not to serve others, but to serve himself by serving others - to use the mask of selflessness to appease some selfish desire. Having been denied whatever satisfaction he hoped to gain in giving this gift - the truth comes out - even as the juice of the grape is expelled when you squeeze it. He wanted to be the hero, that's what this was about. He tried to produce this effect by doing something "selfless" - but you everything a person does, he or she does to please himself - that is what it means to be "fallen" - it means we are incapable (in and of ourselves) of being selfless. This is what it means to be in bondage to sin, but that is for another post...
You cannot come up with a scenario where anyone does anything that is entirely selfless because the truth of the matter is that we are utterly incapable of it. Anyone who denies this does not understand sin, and does not understand righteousness.
In truth there is no middle ground between righteous and unrighteous (and bear with me because I will repeat this) just as their is no middle ground between life and death, failure to be in one camp automatically means you are in the other camp.
So we have a funny situation with new born babes, they are "unrighteous" but they are at the same time "sinless". They are certainly not condemned on account of their own (or anyone else's) sin, but they are not by this fact made righteous. Even innocent babes are not yet fit to be in God's presence.
So we ask our selves, what would be the judgment should an innocent babe perish: eternal life, or hell?
Given that Christ said, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" - we heartily conclude that children who perish gain eternal life, not because they are sinless, nor because they are (personally) righteous, but rather because the grace and mercy of God has granted that Christ saves those who die as children. I am going to unpack that thought a bit, but I warn you beforehand that this will be a "how" and not a "what" explanation. I could have it wrong, but I hold to something that strikes me as both rational, and doing no injury to the text.
Hearing the salvation of children described that way, (saved not because of sinlessness or personal righteousness) might cause someone to object: what would a sinless babe need to be saved from? If babes are not culpable for Adam's sin, or culpable for their own sin, then what charge could God bring against them? What do they need to be saved from??
Even a sinless babe lacks that righteousness flows from the life and person of God. The babe would still need to be saved from their own unrighteousness - even if the babe hasn't yet produced that personal rebellion against God (sin) that eventually condemn us all.
Did you see what I did there? I tied condemnation to personal culpability.
Okay it wasn't really an earth shattering revelation or anything, but I don't state it lightly either. There is some fear and trembling going on, lest I go to far, or not far enough.
Yet isn't that exactly what we see in the scriptures? Do you not know that a dozen Israelites were sent to spy out the promised land? They were gone forty days, and when they returned, ten of them gave a bad report saying that while the land was awesome and all that, the who people in it were so strong and big that they would surely wipe out Israel if Israel were dumb enough to go in and try take it. That was a monumental discouragement. They had just escaped from Egypt, and now it looked like God had saved from from the frying pan, only to toss them into the fire.
Only two gave a right report: Caleb and Joshua. These not only said that the land was awesome, but ripe for the taking, given that God Himself had given them the land, and would certainly see them take it. These, rather than giving a discouraging report, encouraged Israel to go in and get what God had promised them!
But the people didn't listen to Caleb and Joshua, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt.
So God judged them as unworthy of receiving promised land, and promised that their bodies would litter the wilderness rather than take up residence in the promised land. But not all of them. God made a distinction between those who were and those who were not culpable for this sin.
In Deuteronomy 1:39 we read, "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it".
These little ones are described by age in Numbers 14:28-29, "Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you; your corpses will fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. "
Do you see that God made a distinction between adults (aged 20 and up) and children whom God decided were not personally culpable for the sins of their parents (anyone aged 19 and under)?
There are at least to obvious things to pull from that, the first is that God made a distinction between culpable and not culpable, and the second is that this distinction was based on age. You can bet that a great many of the teens in that crew were screaming the same things their parents were saying - but God did not hold these ones as culpable for doing so... Let that sink in.
When, in the wilderness, God made a distinction in culpability between children and adults, I take this to heart. Is God the same today, yesterday, and forever? Is this act an isolated, one-timer? Does God abolish all distinctions before this, and every distinction after it?
I see in this, and you should also, not merely as a history of what has happened in Israel in the past, but I see this as the character of God put on vivid display to any with the eyes and ears to see and hear it. This is a reflection of God's character, an illumination of character that God -intended- to make known.
One thing we see for certain: culpability and condemnation go hand in hand. Where there was no culpability, there was no condemnation. Every believer ought to know that there is one (and only one) way for a culpable sinner to escape the damnation that awaits him or her, and that is through repentance towards, and faith in, Christ.
But we are concerning ourselves here with those who die before they become culpable in God's eyes. What of them?
These either have no sin (new born babes, for instance), or by reason of age or disability, lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend sin in such a way as to be held culpable for it. Does that mean that they righteous?
Before I answer that, let's remember together what we find in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. A man does not need to hear the gospel, to know that there is a God, and that they are beholden to Him. Our culpability is not linked to whether or not we have heard a doctrinally perfect explanation of how to become a Christian. Culpability is not linked to whether or not we know about Jesus, or the God of the scriptures. We do become culpable at some point in our life (that much is certain) For some this is earlier, for others it is later. But even if we could plumb with some hope of precision, the depths of exactly what must be understood before one becomes culpable,what would that gain us? if we allow Paul's explanation in Romans to be our teacher in the matter, we will conclude that at some point everyone capable of understanding that there is a God, is made culpable of their sin by that understanding. I would not want to venture further than the scriptures on that point.
Now back to the question of righteousness...
I have pretty much answered the question of whether sinless babes are righteous a few paragraphs back. These are no more righteous than anyone else, but if in case you are still troubled by the thought ask yourself this question: was Jesus righteous when He was born? Think it through, lest you say that Christ was at some point unrighteous...
Those who (by virtue of a works based righteousness) link the notion of righteousness to works, that is who think that righteousness is something you bring into being by doing good works, would have to conclude that Jesus became righteous by doing righteous things. That His righteousness flowed from what He did, rather than having what He did flow from the fact that He was righteous. If that were so, then Jesus was, for a time at least, un-righteous, since there is no middle ground. I hope the idea that Jesus was at one point lacking in righteousness strikes you as absurd (as it should). We only bother to ask the question because doing so will ferret out for some, an otherwise sleeping, but present (and quite wrong-headed) notions that righteousness can be produced by doing righteous things. That is nonsense. Righteous deeds flow from a righteous life. That is why all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags - because they do not flow from a righteous life, but from a life that is - by definition - lacking righteousness. That is what it means to be "fallen" - it means that we cannot produce righteousness, because we have righteousness in us, and have no connection to the righteousness of God, by virtue of being cut off from that life thanks to Adam's sin.
So Jesus did not become righteous by doing righteous deeds - rather the righteous deeds that Jesus performed in His life were a reflection of a righteousness that was there from the very beginning.
Babes are not born with this righteousness, because this righteousness is found only in the life Divine, that life is what we were cut off from when Adam sinned. Even though every baby is born without personal sin, that does not mean that they are righteous. The moment we uncouple the notion that righteousness can be produced by righteous deeds, we see clearly that a babe cannot be righteous, because righteousness isn't about what we do, it is about what we are - either we are righteous or we are not, the fruit betrays the tree. A life that does not partake of God's life, even if that life has not yet expressed itself in rebellion - is still an un-righteous life.
New born babes are not, and cannot be condemned by some personal sin (because they are incapable of generating any), but the same are likewise not commended to God for this reason, because this reason is by no means meritorious. That is what our Lord told us when he gave the story of the unprofitable servant. You recall the one. The servant is out in the field all day, working, and comes in, and sees that his master is seated and well fed before he dares to look after himself - and having done all these things perfectly, our Lord tells us that the servant has done NOTHING meritorious. He is a servant, and as such his service is expected. Failure to server would be a reason to fire him, but doing his job is not a reason to praise him. It is what he is paid to do.
In the same way a babe who has no sin is not to be praised - we are expected to be sinless (as hard a pill as that might be for some to swallow). If you lived your whole life to this day, having never sinned, you would still be unfit in the eyes of God, because all you will have done is what was expected of you. Doing what is expected of you is not meritorious, it does not commend you to God - it only stops you from being condemned for your rebellion.
In other words, being sinless does not mean you are righteous. Infants who perish in their innocence are "unrighteousness" even though they are sinless. They need the propitiating work of Christ in order to have eternal life, just like anyone else.
Ah, there is that big theological word: propitiation. Let me take a moment to explain it. To do that properly I shall have to explain expiation also. Propitiation for the sinner necessarily includes expiation, but propitiation for the sinless does not include expiation.
To propitiate means to create favor where there was none previously or to restore a favor that previously existed.
To expiate is to remove entirely the sting of an offense.
I am speaking in overly simple language here to try to avoid spending a lot of time defining what really are simple concepts.
For the sinner there are two problems - he has offended God by his sin, and there is nothing within him that commends him to God or can comment him to God. If I were at a restaurant and found that my chicken was only half cooked, and having eaten some I was made sick, etc. I probably would not eat at that restaurant again. If the restaurant offered to pay for my meal, I don't think that would suffice to make up for the fact that they -poisoned- me. If however, the restaurant paid not only for my meal, but for whatever health care was required, and even paid for any loss of work, and the like, and did so freely and without having to be sued - I would probably be satisfied that they had settled the debt incurred by their having poisoned me. Yet even if that had been done, I still wouldn't eat there again. Ew! Half cooked chicken? Yuck. No way pal. All these things would amount to nothing more than satisfying the debt that my poisoning created. To use the fancy word: These things would have expiated me; that is, they would settled their debt to my satisfaction. But doing that would by no means propitiate me - that is, it would not make me go there again to dine, and I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone else to go there either.
But let's say that the the owner visited me daily in the hospital, after having already settled the debt my poisoning put him under, and by his presence and interest began to demonstrate to me that what happened was by no means a reflection upon the way he does business or the way he thinks of customers. If in a short time I became convinced by a sincere and obvious regret in the man, and being aware that his concern was by no means a legal one, and not some publicity thing - but just a person letting me know that he was deeply sorry about what happened, and genuinely concerned about his role in my situation, I may well became inclined not only to attend his restaurant again, but perhaps even to order the chicken. In a word, such an effort on his part, if I gave into it, would be an example of propitiation. In order to get to the place of propitiation (the place where he finds favor in my sight), he would first have to make expiation (satisfy fully the offense he had given me in poisoning me).
For the sinner then, our death (in Christ) expiates our sin debt. Christ was the ark, and we were sinners within that ark. When the judgment of God fell upon us it took not only our lives, but the life of Christ with it. We died in Christ, and it was our death in Christ that expiated our sin (the penalty for sin is death and so our death in Christ expiates God's wrath against us personally. Our sin condemns us, our death in Christ satisfied that condemnation).
I differ from most of you reading in that I do see God as punishing Jesus in my place. While the language on this point borrows heavily from the language balancing accounts, I do not regard the debt of my own sin as something that can be satisfied by the death of another. If someone did something to someone I love that was worthy of the death penalty - I could never be satisfied that justice was done if they put someone other than the culprit to death - no matter how willing that culprit was. I don't view Christ as a substitute who stands in my place, I see Christ as the ark into which my life is placed, so that when God pours out His wrath on me personally, and I die I will not remain dead, because I am in Christ who sacrificed himself in this way: he became the living Ark who would carry me through the flood of God's wrath - that is, who would carry me through death. Not as a substitute, but rather as a Siamese twin, the one guilty, the other innocent, such that the same lethal solution that put the guilty twin to death took the life of the innocent one, even as the resuscitation of the innocent one restored the life of the guilty.
If you want to think of the death of Christ as an example of how angry God is with you, or if you want to think of God punishing an innocent man in your place - that is between you and God. But for me, I do not see those notions in the scriptures. I see myself baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ, for the sake of taking me through death - it is the "how" of the atonement, I am atoned because God poured out His wrath upon me while I was in Christ. The soul that sinned has died, and the life that was raised was not my old dead life, restored, it was the life of Christ which has become my own. I have that life now, but I have also that old life - the one that was taken to the cross. My duty is to obey the one, and to deny the other, but this is a discussion for another time. I mention it only because doing so may help the reader, by way of seeing the greater theological context in which I couch these things, to understand more closely the way I see these things.
Back to thought that I interrupted there...
Having our sins expiated, by no means makes us acceptable to God. You could think of it this way, it excuses us from hell, but it in no way qualifies us for, or commends us to, life in paradise or (thereafter) upon the new earth under a new heaven - that is, it does not commend us to God. If all things ended there, such a one would escape eternal damnation, but would still lack eternal life.
Here the gospel itself explains the rest. Even as our own rebellion demanded our own death in Christ, such that Christ died with us even as we were in Him for this purpose, so being dead, but still united to Christ, who Himself retained the righteousness of His own unconquerable, irrepressible divine life, even in His death with us, so also this same righteousness demanded the resurrection of our Lord, and as we were no longer culpable for our sin (God's wrath having been spend on it already), and having been united to the life of Christ which God was raising from death - so we too were raised up with Christ, being bound to that righteous life, and more, being a partaker of it, so that the righteousness of Christ was our own by virtue of that union which was stronger than death - we inherited (or rather became partakers of) that same righteous which was found in Christ.
To put it another way, Christ's life was the Ark that believers were put into, so that when God poured His wrath out on them, and they died, yet they would pass through that death being found in the life of Christ, even as Noah passed through the wrath of God (in the form of a flood). In this way Christ expiated the sins of those sinners who called in the past, or call now, or will call in the future, on the name of the Lord. But it was the life of Christ itself - the righteousness of Christ, if you will, that all those who have been united to Christ by faith became partakers of that commends us to God. The righteousness (and really, the whole life) of Christ is what has made propitiation for us. Not the spending of it (that expiates), but our sharing in the perfection of it that propitiates.
So while a sinner needs to be both expiated and propitiated, one who is either sinless by virtue of having died in infancy, or who is not yet culpable by virtue of immaturity (whether by reason of age or infirmity), needs only to be propitiated by the life of Christ.
One might think of it this way, elect sinners who were saved by grace through faith, are united with the life of Christ so that they partake of both His death and resurrection. The scriptures are given for such as these. Elect innocents however are united with the life of Christ but only partake of His resurrection, and not His death, and as these are saved in their ignorance, the scriptures do not describe the process, because the scriptures were not written to inform these (or anyone else for that matter) of this things.
Having said that, I am obviously not standing on a set of proof texts. My assertions do no injury to the scriptures, or the character of God, but they are not pulled from plain texts that announce these things. The outcome is clear and few would dispute it (children who die do not go to hell), so what I am guessing at isn't the "what" it is the "how".
To be sure, most theologians are wiser than myself in that they stop short of trying to present an explanation of the how, and likely because they realize that we don't need to understand how a car works to drive it, and that even if we could take the thing apart perfectly, and put it back together soundly, we would add nothing to its functionality. There is a danger we face in pulling apart such a thing, and we weight the satisfaction of our curiosity against the possibility that we foul the whole thing up by taking it apart in our ignorance.
I think it is for this reason that better persons than myself have stopped short of actually putting on the table the requisite pieces that necessarily attend the conclusions they draw. We all want to protect the gospel, and leave no room for anyone to suggest that there is more than one way for a person to be saved. Introducing the notion that not everyone needs to be saved, could open up a can of worms that few men want to spend the rest of their lives defending.
There are none who are righteous, not even one. Righteousness is more than a lack of guilt. Nor is it something that can be earned by effort, as though it could be had by works of the flesh. It is partaking of the divine life - Adam and Eve were righteous until they sinned, at that point they were cut off from the life of God (and subsequently, from the source of all righteousness).
The good deeds that flowed from Adam and Eve prior to the fall, flowed from the life of Christ because they were yet partakers of that life, they ate freely, and were encouraged to do so, from the Tree of Life which stood at the very center of that garden. This righteousness ceased to flow from them in that instance that they sinned, because in doing so they cut themselves off from the life of God, and the righteousness that flows from it.
They became unrighteous, not because they did bad things, but because they were no longer conduits of God's righteousness. Doing "good" things could no more produce genuine righteousness, than animating a corpse like a puppet could produce life.
Every descendant of Adam shares in this fatal flaw - none of us are righteous, that is, no one is born a partaker of the life of God, we are born apart from this life. Some describe this as being born with a "sin nature" but I think that is a clunky way of looking at it, and one that is based upon the presumption that sin is inherited genetically - a theory that should have been regarded as immature even in Augustine's day, but which once it was accepted has only increased in gravity with age. It is true that none are righteous, but not because we are born corrupt in our flesh, it is because we are born into a life that is severed from the life of Christ in which is righteousness. We are unrighteous, not because unrighteousness is passed down in the flesh, but because righteousness is linked to the life of God, and we are born detached from that life.
Jesus did not inherit Mary's "sin nature" because the notion of a sin nature is a little off, in that it assumes that something is passed along from parent to child in either the flesh or the spirit. If you want to think that the sin nature is passed along from parent to child, you have to deal with the fact that Mary was a sinner and Jesus was not.
The Catholics had to invent the idea that Mary, in a special act of God's grace, was neither conceived in sin, nor partook of sin (at least until after Christ was born), in order that Jesus could be born without the "taint" of Adam's sin - which is bound up (thanks to Augustine) in this common notion of a sin nature. The protestants don't even bother to explain it, other than to wave a vague hand at the whole matter and say that the flesh of Christ was special and different than everyone else's flesh because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. In this way, Jesus avoided inheriting Mary's "sin nature" because Jesus was not conceived by her flesh, but put into it pre-conceived. She was just chosen to be the human incubator. Of course that would void all the prophesies that said that the Messiah would be from the seed of David - since He would be decidedly -not- from the seed of David. But that can be got around by making the "Seed" a spiritual thing - a spiritual son of David, rather than one who was actually descended from David.
Either way, the notion of a sin nature tends to snag, either a little or a lot, when you plug Christ into the equation. In order to accommodate Christ, one has to provide a way for our Lord to avoid it - either to invent a scenario where there is no sin nature to inherit (Catholicism, via the immaculate conception of Mary), or through suggesting that Jesus wasn't physically the Son of Mary (some evangelicals believe this), or by ignore it as a "mystery" we will never understand, etc. (other evangelicals).
But we do not need to invent a nature that is passed along from parent to parent. If I turn off the light, and my child is born in the dark, he hasn't inherited this darkness through my flesh, but as a consequence of my action. In the same way, we inherit the consequence of Adam's action: a separation from God, and from the life and righteousness that exist in Him. We are all born lacking these, and this explains fully why everyone sins as soon as they are able - because there is no righteousness apart from God, and to be severed from God means that there is no connection between us and God. We cannot therefore do "good" things to become righteous, anymore than a mother can become a virgin by abstaining from sex. What we do does not produce the life of Christ in us, rather it is the life of Christ in a person that can produce genuine acts of (His) righteousness.
If we accept therefore that righteousness cannot be had apart from the life of God, it becomes very easy to understand why everyone sins - we sin because we lack the life of God, and not because our parents passed down some sort of thing that "makes" us do bad things. Sin isn't defined as doing bad things, it is defined as ruling yourself when God is the only one who has a right to rule over you. If you are cut off the life that sustains God's rule, you will rule yourself, regardless of who your parents were, because you didn't inherit the absence of God's life from your parents, it came into being through Adam's sin, and you are no different than your parents were in that you came into this world, just as they did, with the lights already out when you got there.
While this mild digression into the nature of our sinfulness may seem a capricious detour, I mention it because our understanding of what happens to children when they die will be influenced to the extent to which the same understands where our sin comes from. The notion that we are born "bad" people is necessarily flawed. We are born unrighteous, and fall into sin as soon as we are able because there is no other option available to us - we have been born into a vacuum wherein no righteousness can be found within us - certainly not the righteousness required to surrender one's life and heart to God in repentance and faith. These things are the things of life, and they cannot be produced by that which has no life in it. We are dead in our trespasses and sin.
So when I write that an innocent who dies is not yet a sinner, and therefore does not need the death of Christ to expiate his or her sins, I am not suggesting that such a one does not need Christ - I am only saying that the gospel is not for that one, for this one was sovereignly taken by our Lord before he or she became guilty by committing some culpable act of sin. They are not condemned for God finds nothing culpable in them, yet these still need Christ to reconcile themselves to the life of God - that is, they still require propitiation in the life of Christ, even as an expiated sinner requires the same in the (resurrected) life of Christ - that is both the elect sinner and the elect innocent must be united to the life of Christ - the one by grace alone expressed in their having perished before they committed some culpable sin, and the other by grace alone expressed through by the imparting of faith and repentance into the breast of an elect sinner.
It isn't that there are two ways for sinners to be saved, it is that God has elected persons from every nation and kingdom, and has sovereignly ordained to reconcile these to Himself by and through the life of Christ. In the case of those elect innocents who die before they commit some culpable sin, these are saved by God's grace apart from faith, because  they are necessarily incapable of faith, and  being inculpable, they do not require the expiation that is acquired through faith, but receive only the propitiation that is bound up in the life of Christ which they become partakers of.
In the case of those elect and culpable sinners whom God saves, He likewise saves these by grace, but imparts to these (as an expression of this same grace) a faith by which these may come to be expiated by and through receiving the wrath of God culminating in their (spiritual) death in Christ, and consequently being the manner in which their sin is expiated, whereafter, being bound to the life of Christ, they are likewise raised from the dead with Him, and become partakers of that life which is itself their reconciliation to God.
Sinless babes, and those who (by virtue of inability) are not held by God to be culpable for any sin, are -not- righteous, but need (nevertheless) Christ in order to be reconciled to God.
These innocents do not apprehend Christ by faith.. or rather, God does not apprehend these innocent ones through faith, He apprehends them before they become sinners, and thus before the necessity of faith - which is the avenue reserved for those who are elect but culpable sinners. These elect culpable sinners God apprehends by way of faith.
I word it that way because some readers are offended by the idea of individual election. They cannot accept the notion that salvation depends on God, they want salvation to depend on man. They accept Hebrews 9:27 - that it is appointed for men to die once, but they either reject that there is an Intelligence that makes these appointments, or they simply refuse to think about it. But the sense we get from the scriptures is that God Himself allots to every conceived life, a number of days. That means that when an infant dies, God has ordained their death, or said more positively, God has ordained only so much life for them. None of us deserves more life than God grants us, and so if we die in old age, or in the womb, our death is not a robbery of something we were owed, it is the full expression of all that we were given - some are given more, some less. that is the way it is. The only people who have trouble with that are people who are so blinded by their own sense of sinful entitlement, that they actually believe life is owed to them in some way.
I say, some readers are offended by the idea that God elects individuals to salvation, and as such they want election to be something empty - something that means something other than election. They want God to elect whole nations, to elect everyone, so that when a person fails to come to faith, they cannot "blame" God for failing to elect that sinner, but can only blame the sinner for failing to accept God. Their heart is in the right place, in that they want to defend the character of God - He would never be mean or unfair! To that I say, tell it to those people whom God condemned to the slaughter, men, women, children, the old, their pets, their livestock. The severity of God, to such as these, is a boogey-man. That was judgment they say, they were especially wicked. They fail to reason themselves and every person around them as equally deserving of the same fate. Some of these even rail against God, saying He was all mean in the Old Testament, but by the time Jesus came, God was better.
At the heart of this kind of thinking is the notion of unfairness. It isn't fair for a father, having four equally undeserving children, to come home one hot summer day and give one of these a frozen ice cream treat, and leave the others to continue to suffer in the heat. If the father gives one, he must give to all, or he is wicked! But if this is how your heart see that, you are blind, and woefully so. The father does not owe any of his children any treats whatsoever. He is not obligated, by one act of grace, to perform another. The children who do not receive the ice cream are no worse off than they were before. Yet their unbridled sense of entitlement may well cause these to imagine that their father "owes" them an ice cream because he gave one to their sibling.
When we apply this sort of blind selfishness, dressed up as "unfairness" to the person of God, we end up with a God who cannot show grace to anyone, unless He shows the same grace to everyone. In other words, they redefine grace as obligatory, if God only gives grace to certain individuals, and this grace is handed out, not according to merit, but arbitrarily (from the view of those either receiving or failing to receive it), that makes God "unfair" - but not according to actual justice, but rather according to the notion of social justice. If a man earns a thing, he deserves it - that is just, or "fair". If a man does not earn a thing, he does not deserve it - that is equally just, or "fair" Likewise the man who is denied his wage is being treated "unfair", and the man who is given a wage he has not earned, is receiving an "unfair" wage - though no one would want to see it that way.
In the case of the father who gives only one of his children an ice cream on a hot day, it may well be said that he is being unfair - but not to the other three children, they are getting what they have earned - nothing. The child who receives the ice cream he has not earned has in fact received something that is "unfair" - since he did not earn it.
We don't think of a gifts as "unfair" because we understand that no one is offended if they are given something they haven't earned. They will certainly be offended if they have earned something they haven't received, or received something (like a punishment) that they haven't earned - but to receive a gift? That isn't seen as "unfair" - it is seen as a gift, a kindness etc.
The man in the scriptures who came to the square and accepted the wage of a worker (one Denarius for one days work) and who went out and worked, and at the end of the day came in and saw the generosity of his employer expressed in supply those who had not worked the full day receiving a full day's wage. Seeing this, he immediately regarded the generosity of the employer as his due, so that when it came time to receive his wage, he was offended that he did not receive the same generosity, but only received what was owed him. Do you see what is wrong with that man's heart? He looked at the generosity of his employer as something owed, and not as an act of kindness. He had no ground whatsoever to complain against his employer for the wage he received, because the wage was both just and agreed upon. Yet the kindness of that employer to others, struck this man as a fault, rather than as a virtue - not because the employer was wicked, but because the man was so wicked, he couldn't see his own greed as the only wicked thing in that whole exchange.
So also there are some who think themselves to be defending the character of God, when they are offended by the notion that God chooses to save some individuals and not others. This they cannot abide because they honestly believe that to withhold salvation from any person would be wicked. Why do they believe that? Because deep down something is wrong with their understanding of God. Maybe they believe that God owes salvation to men, or that men deserve eternal life. Whatever they believe for others, likely finds its origin in what they believe is owed to them. Maybe such a one rightly sees that he or she is unworthy of salvation, and for this reason is unable to accept the thought that God has chosen such an unworthy person, when He has apparently overlooked much better people. Having begun with their own worth, their theology ends on the same. God saves those who have to one degree or another, done something that made it possible for God to save them. God supplies the possibility of salvation to all (they reason), but only those who do what is required to be saved, end up being saved. God didn't choose them - He just knew beforehand that they would chose Him, and so He chose them first.
Of course that is absurd.
God created all of time and space in the same act of creation. He doesn't look forward or backward in time, He sees the whole of it in every glance (if I can so personify the Eternal Father contemplating His finite creation). Each moment we live was created in the same act of creation as brought the stars into being. God's sovereignty envelopes creation - He doesn't live in the present, looking ahead at what is to come, and doing things now that will end up making sense later (such as electing people to salvation). He ordained as many as will be saved to salvation, and orchestrated creation to produce them. Period.
Coming back to the infant who dies while innocent. God allotted a very short life to that child - a life free from sin, and a life that would be propitiated by the life of Christ - for in ordaining that this child would die before becoming culpable for sin, God has revealed that this child was indeed chosen by God. We may look to adults who claim to be believers, and wonder at whether or not they are genuine in their faith, and thus genuine children of God - but such uncertainty is not afforded us when it comes to the life of an infant that comes to end in innocence. This life was certainly the life of one of God's elect.
In closing, this become a great source of comfort to grieving parents, but it is also can inform those who hate that image of God that is really just a popular caricature - the one where they ask, not because they are interested in the answer, but because they already hate God, and want to use this opportunity to vent their hatred at the expense of the believer, I say, when they ask how it is that a good God can take the life of an innocent child.
My answer is that God doesn't take anyone's life, but gives a number of days of life freely to all those whom He has created. For some this amounts to many days, to some few - but all life is a gift, and when that gift is spent, it is no less a gift because it was smaller on this side of eternity than what was allotted to some other person. To be sure, those who die thus, are given the greater gift, because they never know sin, and are hastened immediately into the presence of God, to begin the life that they were born to life.
Likewise, if someone asks where God's mercy was for all the natives living in North America before the gospel came here, or for all the people who live in countries where the gospel is not being preached - where is God's mercy for these people, and for these nations? If God is the true God, why is His mercy limited to "Christian" nations? The answer is obvious, wherever a person dies in innocence, whether due to age, or infirmity, there the grace and mercy of God is found - for such an elect child was conceived, and departed to be with the God who gave them that life.
In this way many committed atheists and devout person of various false religions, have filled the halls of paradise with the elect of God, no matter the year, no matter the location on the globe, no matter whether the gospel has been made known here or there. Such is the grace of God, to save for Himself a people from amongst all nations, and epochs.
Now, this has been a long, and at times meandering post. I hope you followed it, but if I have raised more questions than I have answered, or if I said something that seems to make no sense, I am happy to either be corrected, or again, to explain my meaning if it is unclear on some point. Just drop me a line in the meta.
posted by Daniel @
| Thoughts on Ephesians 4:11
|Before we get to Ephesians 4:11, I want to look at Ephesians 4:7-8, in order that my take on Ephesians 4:11 might be better understood.
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led captive a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" - Ephesians 4:7,8 [NASB]
When you come across these verses in Ephesians 4, you may stop and think to yourself, what does Paul mean here? Is he talking about spiritual gifts? Is he talking about the Holy Spirit? Is he talking about the grace of God (as pertaining to his own salvation) as a gift? What does it mean that grace was given to each one of us "according to the measure of Christ's gift"?
One thing we want to avoid, when we ask this question, is a sort of Etymological fallacy where we read the word "gift" and immediately read into it an arbitrarily narrow technical meaning. That is, we shouldn't assume that the word gift here means "spiritual gift" or the "gift" of the Holy Spirit.
In order to avoid making such an error, we go back and follow the flow of what Paul has said, is saying, and is going to say. Paul writes as a man building a convincing and rational argument. It is his way to first lay out the facts and then to reason from them. It follows then that if we know what point Paul is making, we should be able to see what role this verse plays in making or supporting that point.
A Quick Outline
In the first chapter Paul tells the reader every believer was chosen by God to be a believer before the foundation of the world. This election was according to the grace of God, and not the will of man. We are redeemed are united in Christ who Himself is the means and the guarantee of our waiting inheritance. Since this is all the work of God, Paul thanks God for the fact that there are believers in Ephesus, and letting them know that He is praying to God that God would increase their understanding concerning the person of Christ.
In the second chapter Paul surveys for his readers, the scope of what Christ has already accomplished on their behalf. He explains it was God who made them alive when they were still spiritually dead. This life from death is described by Paul as God's grace. But we were not merely made alive we were exalted to the right hand of God in Christ. Such things were not done for because of anything that we had done. God did not choose us on account of anything we had done - his choosing us is described as the gift of God; a work that God purposed to before ever it was done.
Paul ends chapter and begins chapter three by informing the reader that both Jews and Gentiles are spiritual equals, being recipients of this same grace, the same spirit, and being members of the same household of God. This spiritual equivalency (between Jewish and Gentile converts) although planned from the start by God, was nevertheless a hidden truth that was revealed in Christ, and it was not the only work of God's grace which had been hidden and was now being revealed.
Of particular note, because it informs our understanding directly with regards to the text we quoted at the start (v.4:7), is the passage that begins in verse 3:7 and ends with verse 13. Here Paul explains that He was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, what was given to Him by the working of God's power, for the purpose of making these mysteries known.
He lets the readers at Ephesus know, at the end of this chapter, that it is because of the eternal purpose of God that he, Paul, is ministering to them in prayer and in doctrine, it is for their growth that God is at work in Paul, and that God is able to do abundantly more for them in this regard than they can possibly imagine.
In Chapter four Paul, having established that God called him to faith and to ministry, encourages his readers to walk also in a manner that is worthy of this great call. In particular Paul focus, as supplied in previous chapters, is unity, presumably between Jews and Gentiles. Paul continues to expound the points of Christian unity, but in verse seven - the verse we began with, Paul begins to touch on the points of diversity.
In order to avoid assigning arbitrary meaning to the words grace and gift in Ephesians 4:7, let us review how Paul speaks of these in the previous chapter.
In Ephesians 3:2, Paul describes being given a stewardship of God's grace, c.f, "if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you;" [NASB]. The grace that Paul was describing was not some general and arbitrary notion of "unfavored merit" - it pointed directly to the fact that God chose us apart from our own merit - which was a mystery up until the coming of Christ. Paul was a minister of this teaching, God gave Paul this stewardship: to teach that those individuals who are saved, were not brought to spiritual life on account of their own merit, effort, or even initiative. That God had predestinted them to this before ever there was a world. The salvation of God's elect is all of grace, and none of works - that is the "grace" that Paul was made a steward and minister of.
In Ephesians 3:6,7 Paul writes of the gift of God in this way, "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power" [NASB]. Paul was made a minister of the gospel according to the gift of God's grace which was given to him according to the working of God's power. In other words, God Himself supplied the power for Paul's teaching that salvation is the gift of God. and not a work of man, and that spiritual life was predestined to those whom God elected beforehand to give it. the gift of Christ here, is salvation by grace.
So when we read in Ephesians 4:7, "But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift." - it is simply saying that God provides for those whom He is saving, and has determined to save, the gift of all that He has done for them already in Christ.
The hard part comes in verse 8, where Paul spontaneously quote from Psalm 68:18, to make the point, "Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men'" [NASB].
In order to appreciate why Paul quotes from Psalm 68, we should do a quick survey of Psalm 68.
The first verse in Psalm 68 paraphrases what Moses would say when the Ark of the Covenant was lifted up for the purpose of leading Israel from one camp in the wilderness to another
Psalm 68:1 - Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered, and let those who hate Him flee before Him.
Numbers 10:35 - Then it came about when the ark set out that Moses said, "Rise up, O Lord! And let Your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate You flee before You."
If you follow along in the book of Numbers, especially around chapter 20 and 21, you will see that Psalm 68 is something of a commentary on what the Lord had done in the book of Numbers. The prayer was that the Lord would scatter the enemies of Israel, and that is exactly what the Lord did. But David shows in this Psalm, the character of God in answering that prayer. God did more than just scatter the enemies of Israel - He was with them in their trials, and rescued them out of them all of them.
By the time we get to verse 18, which Paul quotes in Ephesians 4:8, David is describing the Lord (who sits enthroned above the Cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant, which was carried before the hosts of Israel when they moved through the wilderness) leading the (former) captives of Egypt as His own captives. These captives are not empty handed, but have received as gifts, the plunder of Egypt; gifts that they received, not because of anything they had done, but because God had worked such works as to provoke Egypt to supply them. Gifts which were intended not only for Israel, but also to furnish Israel's worship of God.
Paul looks back to this verse which describes the former slaves of Egypt now held captive by their covenant with God, and supplied with gifts that they rightly owed to God's provision in the first place, and put to use in furnishing and supplying all that was needed in preparing the tabernacle of God, and all that would stand within it, and reaches into that verse with the understanding given to him by the Lord, and pulls from it that symmetry between what happened there and what happens in the life of the believer.
We were slaves to sin, but our now slaves to Christ. What we have now (our salvation and the fact that we were predestined to it), we cannot say that we earned, even as they could make no such claim. We are captives who have been freed from one yoke, and put to a better one. We serve God, not with what we produced, but with what He supplies. This is what Paul is saying in this verse. Just as the Ark of God's Covenant ascended mount Zion with David dancing before it, and was set in that tent that David had pitched for it, so also Christ having descended to the earth, ascended to the right hand of God. Even as God provided the gifts that were given to the Egyptians so that He might receive them again when they made the tabernacle and all that was in it, so also Christ also provided the gift of God's grace in electing then saving those whom God has chosen to save, so that with their salvation they might use the gift of their salvation to serve God.
The text goes on to tell us that Christ provided these men to the church to build her up: Apostles, prophets, missionaries, pastors and teachers. I should mention that while all pastors are teachers, not all teachers are pastors - which is probably the reason why the other men whom Christ has given as gifts to the church, are identified in the original text with their own definite article, and why pastors and teachers share between them the same definite article.
Is Paul saying that Christ gave these five "spiritual gifts" to the church? No. he isn't, though some will read that into the text. I reject it because Spiritual gifts are a new covenant thing - they are the expression of the indwelling Holy Spirit that is unique to the new testament, and frankly, the Apostles were already apostles before Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was given to believers in this new capacity, and subsequently when the Spiritual gifts came into being). There were prophets in the old testament, and men whose blessed feet carried the word of God over mountains long before the Spirit descended at Pentecost. Likewise with teachers, and overseers.
If you want to call these "offices" that's not quite as good as simply calling these "men" - Christ supplies such men. The Apostle Paul was a gifted teacher and Evangelist. His "gift" was the Holy Spirit who expressed Himself in Paul in the capacity of a teacher, a miracle worker, a leader, a man of profound faith, and as world-changing evangelist - who knows what other ways the Spirit expressed Himself through Paul? But to say that Paul had the "gift" of Apostleship? I am inclined to conclude that these men were certainly gifted, but not necessarily according to gifts that bore the titles that were given to them.
I don't believe, therefore, that there is such a thing as the gift of "Apostleship", or the gift of "pastoring" for that matter - there are gifted men who have been given to the church in this capacity, and the role they fill is certainly a gift to the church, but thease are not spiritual gifts in the sense that people use the phrase.
I should qualify that a bit too, in closing. Some people think of spiritual gifts as discrete, well defined, spiritual abilities or powers that the Holy Spirit imparts to believers in the moment they are saved. I think that we do not receive gifts in this manner - we receive the Holy Spirit, whose expression in our lives, can be described in terms of various graces, the grace of teaching, the grace of faith, the grace of mercies, of leadership, etc. Everyone who comes to saving faith receives the same Spirit, but the Spirit manifests Himself in diverse ways throughout the body of Christ. One man is more in tune with the mercy of God than another, and we say he has the gift of mercies. Another more in tune with the generosity of God, and we say he has the gift of generosity, another is full of trust by the same spirit, and we say he has the gift of faith, etc.
That is how I think it works. The manner in which the Holy Spirit manifests Himself in a believer's life is described as a "gift" - but it doesn't describe a power or ability that operates apart from the Holy Spirit - it is the working of the Holy Spirit Himself in that believer, through that believer, and for the building up of the church of Christ.
posted by Daniel @
| Grace, grace, God's grace
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." - Titus 2:11-14 [ESV]
One recent estimate suggests that there are over one and a half billion people alive today who have never so much as heard of Jesus Christ.
Positively speaking, that means around five and a half billion people have heard the name of our Lord. Close to a third of these five and a half billion call themselves Christians, but only about a quarter of these would be evangelical in practice or name. It is clear from the scriptures that not all of these evangelical Christians are genuine, born again, believers; that is, even among the 500 million or so evangelicals, we know from the scriptures that some are in fact self-deceived, believing themselves to be wheat, when they are in fact chaff.
I have heard some pretty grim estimates, some say only 10% of professing evangelicals are actually saved, some say 30%, some 50%. I haven't heard too many claiming any numbers larger than this, but I am (personally) hopeful that these paltry estimates are off.
If the gospel preached in evangelical churches is the true gospel, and the gospel taught elsewhere is in fact false, and cannot save, that means that somewhere around 7% of the world's population adheres to the true gospel, and within that 7% some, perhaps many, haven't savingly understood it.
I can't see any honest person, disputing the numbers themselves, though amongst those whose gospel differs from that of the evangelicals, they numbers could be substantially different, but still statistically appalling. Even if every person who called themselves a Christian was actually saved, the number is still small enough to make this observation: God isn't even saving half of us.
That isn't meant to be a slight against God, God could save everyone if that was His plan. The fact that He isn't saving everyone informs us that He has never intended to save everyone.
For some this thought is scandalous! The only God they are willing to accept is a God who is desperately trying (and horribly failing) to save everyone. They admit that God is all powerful and all knowing, but even with such advantages, there are a billion and a half people on earth right now who will never hear about Him. Yet even with such advantages, only a third of those who do hear about Him care to take on His name. Among these few who do, only a sliver will accept the true gospel; and even these are by no means all wheat - some, perhaps many, are "chaff".
I have more respect for the atheist than a believer who imagines God is trying to save everyone, because one of the classic arguments of the atheist is aimed, not at the God of the scriptures, but at this caricature of God who is desperately trying (and failing) to save everyone. The atheist says, if this God is trying to save everyone, why doesn't He simply prove to everyone on earth, all at once, that He is God? I mean He obviously has the power to do so!
One of the pillar strengths of many atheists is that they are willing to believe if they have proof - and God could provide such proof without any effort on His part.
Why would any atheist (or anyone else for that matter) want to believe in a God who wants to save everyone, but isn't able to? I mean, what else is this God incapable of? Sustaining eternal life? Being fair? How can we put our trust in an omnipotent being who does not use that omnipotence to ensure that what He attempts He succeeds in? Should we put our selves in the hands of a functionally impotent Deity?
I speak as a person capable of reason, and unwilling to exercise blind faith. I personally would never submit myself to a God who cannot accomplish what He desires to do, and I have little respect for anyone who can. The scriptures do not call us to an irrational faith, but a well reasoned, and rational one.
I didn't have to look at the reality around me to come to the conclusion that God isn't trying to save everyone. The scriptures make that very clear. The reason I appeal to the reality around us, is because I want to underscore that it agrees with what the scriptures teach, and with what I believe - that whatever God's grace is, it doesn't result in everyone being saved.
That means that either  God's "saving" grace fails to bring about salvation in some (through faith), or that  God's "saving" grace is only being given to some.
Many Christians - perhaps more today than ever before, are inclined to think of God's grace as a sort of force or power that God has unleashed in the world. Some might describe it as a settled kindness, or as a universal assistance that God is willing to render, if and when a person appeals for that assistance. The view, however it may be expressed, is that God's "saving" grace is available to everyone (sort of like gravity), but only effective in those who overcome their own inertia, by hearing and then by putting their trust in, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you don't have a problem with that view, you should. Because it has to be read back into the scriptures through the lens of an image of God that does not exist in the scriptures - an image of God as being ungodly if he doesn't give everyone an equal chance at salvation. An image that says, yes, men are condemned by their own sin, but God must try to save them, or He isn't nice enough to be the God I want to find in the scriptures.
However you dice it up, that is where it all comes from - a presupposition about how God should act that informs our interpretation of certain passages in the scriptures that concern themselves with the justification and sanctification of sinners.
In other words, the (main? only?) reason some see God as providing saving grace to all is because they presume that God must necessarily be trying to save everyone, since -that- agrees with the image of God they have brought to the scriptures.
Those who see the saving grace of God as exclusive, rather than inclusive, believe that God is by no means bound to show mercy to those who justly deserve the judgment that awaits them. They reason that God is just in condemning sin, and by extension, sinners - that the condemnation of mankind is not an unjust, but a just thing.
They regard those who are being saved as having been elected by God to receive, unfailingly, this saving grace. That is, they see God choosing to redeem certain condemned and guilty individuals, throughout all of history, as the expression of God's grace. That such sinners are worthy of condemnation, even as all are worthy of it, but that these ones have received, through no merit of their own, the grace of God in the form of having been chosen to be redeemed in and through Christ.
In other words, these see the election of individual sinners (each of whom is entirely worthy of the damnation their sin has already earned for them), as act of grace. God would have been just to put Adam to death immediately, but chose instead to redeem not only Adam, but some of Adam's descendants. God could have allowed Adam and every one of his descendants to simply perish and be judged for their sins - that is, God could have allowed Adam and all his descendants to live for a time, bear children, and die, and then be judged for their sin, and every last person would receive the same judgment, and find themselves spending eternity in the lake of fire. But instead, God wrote, as it were, the book of life - putting into it the names of every person He intended to redeem throughout the ages.
We could just as easily think of this book as the book of God's grace, or the book of the elect - since it describes those condemned sinners whom God ordained to life through the redemptive work of Christ. Those whose names God did not elect to include in this book, remain condemned, and those whose names are found in this book will be redeemed.
To recap, saving grace is either a provision made by God, and universally bestowed on all, but only effective in those who manage to appropriate it by submitting themselves to the righteousness of God through a faith that resides in them apart from this grace (since it is the means by which this grace is apprehended). Or saving grace bestowed on individuals by God in order that they may come to the obedience of faith through which they are redeemed in Christ. That is, either grace is appropriated by faith, or faith flows from grace.
In the first scenario, grace rests upon all, waiting for each to produce for themselves a sufficient faith to pour itself into, and (possibly) effect a salvation. In the second certain guilty individual have been spared by God as an act of grace, and history waits for these individuals to be born. As each is born, God providentially ensures that each one comes to saving faith in Christ, whom God has supplied as their redeemer. The whole process is an act of grace, but it isn't available to those who were not chosen beforehand to be spared thus.
The fact that we have so many Christian denominations informs us that people are ready and willing to find their own preconceived notions staring back at them from the pages of scripture. How can anyone be sure his or her opinion is any better than anyone else's? Surely no one person is able to perfectly erase their own bias - so shouldn't we conclude, as the relativists do, that truth is unknowable, and that contrary views on the scriptures are equally valid, since we have no way to discern which of so many opinions may be the right one?
To that I say that even if we are not able to discern which, of all the various opinions in the world on scripture, is the most correct, that isn't the same as saying that we cannot compare with some degree of certainty which opinions agree with both the scriptures and the reality we see around us.
If one person believes that the scriptures teach that God is desperately trying to save all men, and another sees God as having chosen before hand every last person who would ever be saved, and both appeal to their own interpretation of the scriptures, we can compare their opinions to what we see in the world, and ask which (if any) agrees both with the scriptures (albeit through some interpretive lens) and with reality. If neither can agree with both, then neither is a good candidate for (discerning) Christian consumption. If both agree with reality, then the matter cannot be weighed by this means, but if one interpretation agrees with reality, and the other does not - the one which agrees with reality is clearly less burdened by false assumptions than the other.
Is God trying to save everyone? If He is, then why are there a billion and a half people in the world today who have never heard of Him? Why did it take 1500 years for the gospel to trickle into North and South America? Wasn't God trying to save everyone? Why was He failing?
We might say that grace is failing today because Christians are not doing all that they "should" be doing. If we were all pulling our weight, then these one and a half billion people would be being evangelized. It is the sinfulness of believers that holds God's grace in check. Huh? Do people actually believe that?
People didn't even know that North and South America existed. We cannot say, and remain intellectually honest, that the reason people weren't being saved in North America was because Christians were being sinful in refusing to evangelize them - the same Christians had no idea that these people existed. If God is at work, moving in the hearts of believers to get them to try and share the gospel with as many people as they can because God is "trying to save everyone" - then how is it that God was unable to convince anyone to go and discover these people sooner?
If you want to believe that God is trying to save everyone, how do you account for the fact that not everyone is being saved? Can it be that the same God who drove Jonah to Nineveh by having him be swallowed whole by a denizen of the deep - this same God could not convince even a single believer to go and preach to the natives of a far away land? How can any sober person look at the world around them, and conclude that God is trying to save everyone. If He is, He is failing monumentally.
One may say that it is wrong to suggest that God is trying to save everyone, but rather that we should say that God has made it possible for everyone to be saved, and that the work of accomplishing this has been given to the church, such that God is not failing, man is failing.
That is perhaps a sadder opinion because God is omniscient, and would fully know exactly how ineffective this approach would be, so that if God was truly interested in saving everyone, He would never have chosen a means that He fully knew beforehand would be so tragically ineffective - given the numbers.
Given this line of reasoning, it seems that of the two opinions, the notion that God is trying to save everyone is inferior to the one that says God is unfailingly saving every single person whom He chooses to save, and those whom God is not sparing thus, are going to receive the condemnation that every one of us deserves.
We might add that in the latter, opinion, even those who are being spared receive the same condemnation as everyone else, but receive that condemnation in and through their union with Christ. They are not excused from the same judgment as everyone else, but pass through it, as it were, by virtue of being in Christ when God poured out His wrath upon our Lord. They were united with Him in his death, that is they received in Christ what their rebellion had earned them; but they likewise received the new life in Christ when God raised Christ (and those who were in Christ) from the dead. Just as Noah and his family passed God's wrath in the ark, so believers passed through God's wrath in Christ.
I am not suggesting that the belief that God's saving grace is exclusive to those whom God has chosen is necessarily true (though I certainly hold it to be), what I am saying is that it is necessarily superior to the notion that God is trying to save everyone with a universal grace that sinners must appropriate through a faith that the bible tells us is impossible (surrendering to God is an act of righteousness, and the bible tells us that no one is righteous)
The one is superior because it agrees with a particular interpretation of the scriptures as well as with the reality we see around us, and the other is inferior because while it agrees with an interpretation of the scriptures, it is denied by the reality we see around us.
If God is trying to save everyone, He is failing. If we say this is because God has commissioned men to bring in the lost, then we must remember that if God was trying to save everyone, He would have known beforehand how commissioning men to bring in the lost would be the colossal failure it has become, and because He is trying to save everyone, He would certainly not have chosen -that- way. If God is trying to save everyone, God is failing, and we can't pass that off onto Christians, because God would have known their failure beforehand, such that if he -truly- wanted to save everyone, He would have selected a means by which everyone would have been saved.
There is no wiggle room for any honest thinker on this one.
One might think, at this point that I am done with this post - that I have walked through my position, come to some conclusion, and am now about to close the post with some pithy thought to meditate on, but I am not.
All I have done is concluded a clarifying introduction to the topic I wish to address. Patience is a gift we receive as we walk in the Spirit. My hope then is that you, the reader, in the Spirit as you read this, lest the temptation to sigh and give up on reading such a long post should claim you. I promise this intro was necessary.
Going back to the passage from the second chapter of Paul's letter to Titus. Grace is described there as actually accomplishing something - it trains the believer. Unless you have the passage memorized, skip up to the top of this post and refresh your memory. Note those things that the grace of God teaches the believer to do.
It happens to most of us early on in our faith. We come to a place where we struggle with an assurance of our own salvation. We believed all the right things, as far as we know, we jumped through all the hoops we thought ought to be jumped through, but for all of that, we are unsettled by the fact that we still sin, and regarding ourselves as hypocrites, we begin to question the reality of our salvation: if Jesus came to save me from my sins, why am I still sinning??
Assurance and grace go hand in hand, but only if you actually understand what grace is. If you think grace is something you have to grab to get, you're not going to understand how grace plays into your assurance of salvation.
In the passage noted (Titus 2:11-14), God's grace trains us:
- to renounce ungodliness
- to renounce worldly passions
- to live self-controlled lives
- to live upright lives
- to live godly lives (in the present age)
- to wait for the return of our Lord who is presently training us in these things.
This does not mean that God's grace is an example that, when we look to it, teaches us how we should act.
It means that the grace of God is in us (in the person of the Holy Spirit), who, being God, is at work in us to will and to do what pleases Him.
Christ Himself, through the Holy Spirit is teaching every believer to renounce ungodliness. This is the grace of God at work in the believer. Christ (through the Holy Spirit) is training every believer to renounce worldly passions; to life self controlled, upright and godly lives. He teaches us that He Himself is our blessed Hope who is going to return one day. The work He is doing in us is described in this same text as purifying for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works.
To the new believer who begins to feels the hand of God's grace upon Him, it doesn't feel like the sort of grace a new believer might expect. It is a conviction of our rebellion when we refuse to submit to the will of God, The flip-side of the same conviction, is that we know to stand away from the one (our own sinful pursuits), and cling to the other (what we know to be the will of God). This sort of grace is the convicting work of Christ through the Holy Spirit, and it is intended to train the believer.
We have in Manitoba, a lot of snow this season. When that snow is cleared from the streets, it is loaded into dump trucks to take it to various places and dump it. By the end of our winter these repositories become huge hills of snow, several foot ball fields wide and long, and over an hundred feet tall. They are left to melt over the course of spring, summer, and fall. Even as the snow melts from every other place, yet it remains there - not because this particular snow is worse than any other snow - but because it is piled so high, and only what is on the surface can melt.
Sin is like that in us.
The work of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, in us is like a thawing, and our sinfulness is like the snow. The whole landscape melts together, with equal vigor, and in a short while we begin to see grass here and there, and soon there is more grass than snow - or more obedience than disobedience - what remains - the grand piles of snow that although they continue to melt, are by no means swept away as quickly as we would like. The new believer sees these and trembles - why are these still there? These are called strongholds by Paul, they are areas in our life where our surrender to God hasn't reached our core yet.
It is a fact that we are ready to regard our freedom from such things as impossible, since were it left to us, we could never set ourselves free from these. Yet in the testimony of every believer we should find the same story - here was some thing I could never let go - some thing I held to for so long, I didn't even realize it was there, and that I was its willing slave. On a day like any other, I suddenly saw it for what it was, and I loathed myself, and called out to my Lord to be free from it - and the burden of that sin slipped away - meaning the chains that bound that person had finally melted away. Christ had not been overlooking it, nor had He forgotten it - but continued to melt it until that mountain was cast into the sea.
We are right to marvel at this - it is what we mean when we say that our Savior is worthy of honor and glory. The one who has been set free, even from a small mountain, has seen first hand the profound grace of God.
When a believer is looking for assurance, I bring them to this passage, and others like it. I show that God's grace cannot be separated from the work of the Holy Spirit, who today is the vehicle through which this grace (which is the work and even the Person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), comes to us.
The Christian life exalts He who works to produce it - it exalts the glory of God, in that it exalts the grace of God - if you understand what grace truly is.
That is the point of this post - to debunk on the one hand, the notion of grace that changes the work of God into an arbitrary power that works autonomously to little or no effect, and again to demystify the concept of grace that we see in it the determined hand of God, unfailingly, and unfalteringly at work in the elect.
What kind of joy do you settle for? Let me tell you, what gets me excited is not that I am saved from God's wrath - even though that ought to be enough for anyone. What gets me excited is that the God who is at work in me, is unspeakably awesome. That even as I try and wrap my head around the thought of Him stooping down, as it were, to serve anyone, how I reel to think that He has stooped not only to serve me, but to continue to serve me throughout my life on this earth. That He hasn't merely saved me, but -is- saving me. That because I am in Christ, I am so precious to Him that He will not leave or forsake me, that nothing can tear me from His hand which has grasped me - the sinner worthy only of condemnation, and has purchased my life with His own.
There is no canvas large enough, nor colors numerous or brilliant enough to paint such a picture as the grace of God in the life of the sinner - and yet here we are, receiving so great a gift that we lack the ability even to comprehend the smallest glimpse of it.
God's grace is precious, so heartbreakingly precious, that anyone who comes close to tasting it becomes the willing slave of this one duty: to proclaim it to anyone and everyone who will listen - to extol and exalt it - not that we make it bigger, but that we stretch our eyes, and the eyes of others, that they may see even the edges of it.
That is what this post is about. The grace of God, and how it trains us to be Christians. To understand that you have to understand grace.
May the Lord open our eyes.
posted by Daniel @
| Easter? Yes or No.
|Easter is the modern form of the old English, "Eastre" - or if you happened to be in Northumbria, "Eostre". If you look at the months of an old English calendar, you will see that the month of April is called, "Eostre-monath" (Easter month). It was called that long before the gospel ever came to English (It got there in the sixth century, by the way).
England was celebrating Easter hundreds of years before anyone there ever heard of Jesus.
That isn't to suggest that the English were celebrating the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ hundreds of years before Christ was ever mentioned there. I means that they were celebrating the coming of spring by worshipping their local version of the prototypical fertility goddess.
In the scriptures, one such fertility goddess was named Ashtoreth, and referred to as the "abomination of the Sidonians". I don't need to describe what went on during the sort of fertility rites that God describes as abominable, it is enough to ask whether God found only the local flavor (Ashtoreth) abominable, or whether God would have found the worship of Eastre by pagans living in English prior to the coming of the gospel, just as abominable. I am willing to go on a limb and say that God found Eastre to be just as abominable as Ashtoreth.
When the gospel did come to England, the paschal season retained its pagan name, primarily, I believe, because the month of April had been called "Easter" for hundreds of years, and no one was about to change the name of the month any more than we would (or could) change the name of a month. Presumably the pagan fertility rites stopped when the country was "Christianized", but some of the pagan stuff has lived on.
So where do the bunnies and colored eggs come in?
Rabbits and eggs have been a symbols of fertility for ages. Their imagery and usage in pagan fertility celebrations precedes their entrance into the church, such that the question should never be where these things came from - they come from the various pagan traditions associated with the worship and veneration of various fertility goddesses. We don't know when these things found their way into the church, but they did, few people saw any trouble with that.
The reason we our Passover "Easter" is because the pagan name for their fertility celebration stuck. The reason we eat chocolate eggs is because the pagan traditions associated with their fertility celebration also stuck somewhere, and eventually spread.
There seems to me to be two schools of thought on this issue:
Some see only a label. They readily admit that while the name "Easter" was lent to the month of April, and eventually insinuated itself into the church through the overlapping of pagan and Christian celebrations, that the name itself was applied equally to both pagan and Christian festivities, but that even as the one began to overtake the other, the label remained, not out of any desire or intention to exalt the name of a false deity, but rather out of long standing habit.
Thus while the name may have once described a specific pagan fertility goddess in England, it also described the month of April which borrowed its name from that pagan deity. Calling the day Easter Sunday, would be about as harmful as calling it "April Sunday" in our modern language. Furthermore, even if it did originally mean something very pagan, as the church began to use the word, the meaning has long since changed. The whole argument then is reduced to: the word has changed its meaning since then, get over it.
The other school of thought reasons that the words meaning has grown to include the Christian celebration, but continues to exalt (by way of remembering) the original usage. That we have no good reason to continue using it, so why not break from this long standing tradition, and begin to use an expression that isn't pre-loaded with pagan sentiment?
I personally accept the argument that prolonged usage has so changed the use of this word that were there no Internet, I think few people would ever have learned the origins of the word, and been offended thereby. Notwithstanding, the Internet is here, and we can look these things up. We gain nothing by holding to a tradition that exalts or has the potential to exalt, false divinities, and frankly, the word "Easter" isn't as theologically satisfying as a phrase like, "the day the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the grave!" or more succinctly, "Resurrection Day"
I prefer the latter. If someone wants to cling to the label "Easter" - I am not going to dispute it with them, though I might share what I know and see if that changes anything. This was a big thing in some circles, so I didn't bother writing it until the smoke cleared.
posted by Daniel @
| My thoughts on Sunday School
|Any time committed Christians minister in good faith to children, I consider that a good thing. Both the children, and those who minister to the children benefit from such ministry.
Some might argue that Sunday School is an innovation, something that was thought up and implemented just yesterday (historically speaking), and to this I would say, yes, that is true. God neither required or suggested that we invent such ministries. But even though Sunday School is notably an unbiblical and recent innovation, that doesn't necessarily mean that God is displeased with us for having created the institution, nor does it necessarily mean that the congregation which has a Sunday School program is necessarily working against the will of God.
Others will argue that because the truths of scripture are spiritual, and not natural, and because they are neither perceived nor revealed by the cleverness of men, the whole notion of framing God's message in "child friendly" manner to children is, by definition, flawed. But such an argument presumes that the message of God is being necessarily watered down when it is presented to children. That presumption, while it is no doubt true in many instances, isn't necessarily true in every case. There is a difference between presenting the truth in a simple manner, and watering down the same truth. To rail against Sunday School on the grounds that there is a potential for those who are ministering to rely upon their method more than the Lord, is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Some reason that because Sunday School borrows both its form and function from our modern institutional education system (which itself labours to conform to the most recent opinions in the field of modern child psychology), it follows that baby of Sunday School, comes in the bath water of worldly wisdom (to reverse a common metaphor). These would say that on top of whatever else is silently being insinuated in the adoption of worldly methodologies, Sunday School creates the same sort of affinity groups within the church, that we find in our public schools (I can't be friends with her! She is in grade six, and I am in grade seven!).
Yet even though no intellectually honest person would deny that Sunday School is borrowing its form and function from the world, yet it doesn't necessarily follow that a church is going to unilaterally, and uncritically employ every worldly innovation in its Sunday School program. The world may have a foot-hold in the door by and through this institution, but the assumption that all Sunday School program ape without scrutiny or question, everything it borrows from the world, is (at best) untenable.
The truth is that many in the church were spiritually nurtured in Sunday School. I have read many accounts of now grown believers who look back to their Sunday School teacher with reverence, because that selfless person took a great and kind interest in their spiritual health, and provoked, challenged, and fed them to the betterment of their soul, and to their genuine joy.
Yet even such touching and genuine testimonies some would chalked up, not to Sunday School, but rather to God's grace, in spite of (rather than because of) Sunday School. Many people were genuinely saved under the ministry of Charles Finney - not because the man was doctrinally sound, but rather in spite of his doctrinal deviations. Are not genuine Christians sometimes born again from within the Catholic Church itself? Is it because the Catholic Church is teaching the gospel? No, it is in spite of it. Which is then the support for this argument: Even if some people can look back to a good experience in their own history, such testimony does not, and can never stand to, validate the practice.
I think it is foolish to condemn Sunday School on the grounds that is not hinted at in scripture and that the whole practice is, at its core, a worldly contrivance, informed by popular psychology, and borrowing both form and function from human institutions. I think it is foolish to condemn Sunday School on the grounds that it isn't our cleverness in teaching that opens hearts, but God's word through and by God's spirit.
So I do not, and can not condemn an ideal implementation of a Sunday School program, unless of course it is being run during the time the rest of the church is gathering.
That is, I am not against giving children godly instruction, even if the way that instruction is being given finds no precedence in scripture and even if it borrows heavily from worldly innovations: so long as those who are ministering in this capacity are mature and careful to both see, and circumnavigate, all the worldly debris would otherwise creep into the church through this worldly venue; but I am against any implementation of Sunday School that is being entered into in a slack, or less than guarded way.
I am not saying that the only reason a church runs a Sunday School program is because godly people are being hoodwinked by a sort of down-the-street conformity which provokes them to run such programs for children. Yes, some congregations will do that, even if the statistics convincingly suggest that Sunday School is largely ineffective. The truth is that very few churches are filled to the brim with spiritually victorious, and well matured believer - isn't the average congregation made up of church attending believers who, while genuine in their faith, never the less fail to thrive spiritually? Do no most believers continue to fumble around without victory over sin, living un-surrendered, or only partially surrendered lives? For the religious habits of bible reading, prayer, church attendance and program participation, are not most of the teachers in the average Sunday School program about on the same page, spiritually speaking, as the children they teach?
I do not hold this opinion as a sort of bitter pill that galls me. It doesn't. It is unfortunate that our culture breeds this sort of superficiality into the church, but its here and grousing about it won't get rid of it. The truth is we the immature state of the church is, I think, not something that is just springing up in our age, it seemed to be the common state of the church in bible times too, if the seven churches in revelation, and the churches that Paul wrote to are any indication (and they are).
I therefore do not condemn any church that implements a Sunday School program. Those who are committed to it will reap some benefit, and the Lord can and does use such programs in spite of our inadequacies. If we threw out everything that wasn't perfect we wouldn't have much left to call "church".
I was glad to enlist my own children in our own Sunday School program, when that program was being offered prior to the regular service; but I took them out of the program when Sunday School began to be offered during the regular service.
Why did I do that? Was it because I believed that Sunday School was bad? No. That was not the reason.
To understand the reason, let me recall to you, dear reader, a youth pastor who was speaking to a group of pastors at a certain conference. During his talk, he reminding his listeners that it is wrong to think of our Christian youth as the "church of tomorrow": they are the church right now.
There is a command in scripture for believers not to forsake gathering with the congregation. The word for congregation there, while it can be used to describe the whole body of Christ (all believers everywhere) it is typically used to describe a local congregation of believers: the local church.
If some of my children are believers, the command is for them to gather with the rest of the believers, rather than to simply come to the same building as the rest of the believers in our congregation, and then promptly separate themselves from everyone else, and cluster together elsewhere, away from their families, and away from the rest of the congregation, in order to receive instruction from people who themselves are likewise forsaking their place in the gathering of the congregation.
So if I have any Christian children, I am obliged to keep them with me when I gather with the congregation. That's one point.
Regardless of whether my children are saved or not, it is important for them to see my faith and obedience in action: to witness each week the priority I give to God's word, in keeping the command to gather with the congregation. It is important for them see me sit and receive instruction, to hear me pray with the congregation, to hear my voice raised in psalms, hymns and spiritual song, along with the congregation. It isn't about bucking the Sunday School System, it is about the primacy of gathering together with your whole family - it trumps Sunday School. That's a second, and quite significant point.
I do not find a distinction between "adult" faith and the faith of children, except perhaps that the faith of children is to be preferred. Why did our Lord allow the children to come to Him (alongside the adults)? It is because He refused to make the sort of distinction that I think many church-goers today regard as a no-brainer. The common notion is that if the children are being dismissed to attend Sunday School during the formal gathering, the best thing to do is send your kids also, not because it is good, or even because you've given the matter any serious consideration. It is done because that is what this sheep sees the other sheep doing, and so he does it to. I believe that, not because I have a low opinion of others, but because I have a low opinion of my own humanity, and I know what my own self craves, and regard it as something common to all, and not unique to me.
The third point, I touched on in passing, but want to highlight again. Those who are ministering to these little ones are likewise forsaking the gathering together with the rest of the congregation, and typically sign on to do this regularly for a set period of time (typically a year). I suspect that most of these are not elders who teach. Not that I think that only a teaching elder is fit to teach children (I don't believe that for an instant), but rather that the one who is fit to preach a sermon is by definition more able to endure the rigors of missing a great many sermons in a row.
I know we can tape sermons, but frankly, that's not the same. Why listen to you own pastor if you're going to go that route? Why attend church at all? Why not simply look of the top thousand sermons of all time, and spend the next twenty years listening to the best sermons history has ever provided us? Because the gathering is more than just the sermon, it is the congregation receiving the same instruction at the same time - so that if anything is amiss, someone can stand up and say - HEY! That's not right, is it? It is so that the whole congregation is likewise informed. Of course that works better when the preaching is expository, and not topical, but to explain that more would be a digression.
The point is that if you have Sunday School during the regular service, you are necessarily, to one degree or another, depriving those who minister with what God intends everyone of us to have, and however you want to dice that it, it doesn't sit right with me.
As far as I know all the arguments being made suggest we are better off without Sunday School, are convincing. If Sunday School hadn't been invented several decades ago, we would probably be better off spiritually speaking for it - but who is to say for sure? I am not prepared to condemn the ideal notion of Sunday School, even if I would condemn many specific implementations of it.
What I do not agree with however, is having any sort of service that segregates parents from their children on the grounds that children are either disruptive, or would learn better in another venue. Hogwash! I have seen with my own eyes, children sitting alongside adults dozens of years older than themselves, grasp fully a spiritual truth from the pulpit that the adults around them failed to grasp. Such is the grace of God - it isn't by our cleverness of teaching, or our ability to reason, or any other human faculty that we natural men receive the word of God - it is by His grace through His Holy Spirit alone. All the treats, drama, puppetry, videos, and games in the world, run by the most committed, sincere believers possible will add nothing to this, and can add nothing to this.
That isn't to say that children won't learn godly things in Sunday School, it is to say that if they do or don't it won't be because the material was presented to them in a way that they could understand it, it will be in spite of that.
So chopping up the congregation during the time we assemble together offers no benefit to the children, and very likely will be detrimental to the adults who put it on if in order to put it on they forsake the regular gathering.
I understand sentimentality. I understand the cuteness factor, and the community face we want to put on. I understand wanting to look as viable and family friendly as the church down the road. I understand that people feel very strongly that Sunday School is good. I understand that. I understand that for many, the notion of "wasting" a whole Sunday Morning attending first a Sunday School class, and then a regular service is not as enticing as sleeping in, and attending only a service and sending your kids out of the room for the service. It's less distracting, and hey! We don't have to spend three and a half hours here, now we can get by with maybe two. Hurrah!?
I get that. Who couldn't?
I have preached for many years, and I have never once been put off by the sound of a crying babe. God help us all if some idiot thinks that the sermon is going to be more effective if it is delivered to a perfectly silent audience. Good gravy, we aren't recording a symphony! If you're distracted by children, the problem isn't the children, it's you. Do you honestly believe that our Lord quieted the entire temple in Jerusalem before He taught there? Did I say good gravy yet? Was our Lord hindered by the sound of the wind, by the conversation taking place all around him, or by the children screaming in glee as they played over in the corner, or the infant whose disruptive crying moved everyone to stare down the mother? I very much doubt it. I think that while pristine quiet may make it easier to hear the speaker, the lack of it is no hindrance to the Holy Spirit. And frankly, if the Spirit of God is in you, you know this is true also.
Not one message of the hundreds I have preached, has ever been thwarted one whit by any distraction, not because they weren't there, but because the work that is being done when a man preaches, is not being done by that man, it is being done in the heart, and not in the room, and God is the one doing it.
So there is my opinion. Sunday School is fine, as an "add on" to the regular service. It probably isn't going to do much good, but it probably won't do any harm either. But anything that cleaves the church into splintered groups when they are supposed to be gathering, I will resist with all the power the Lord provides me.
I don't judge anyone else in this matter either. If you send your kids to Sunday School during the regular service, who am I to condemn you for something I am convicted of? I am not going to judge you or speak ill of you for that. Perhaps in my prayers I will pity you, and beg the Lord to open your eyes, but I am not going to come over to your house and insist you do as I do, or talk about you behind your back because you don't see these things as I see them.
Nor will I regard you as inferior, spiritually speaking, to myself - for I oppose in my soul that kind of bigotry, even if my own flesh lends itself to pursuing it. I will simply explain my opinion, and answer any questions anyone may have concerning it.
I write this in case anyone wants to know where I stand on the issue.
posted by Daniel @