|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| [The Importance of Doctrine]
how important is
doctrine to the christian faith? and if it is
vital, then why doesn't the church try to teach it more often? (so i
guess im also wondering of the purpose of the church) don't we have to
have some understanding of the doctrines (sin,salvation, etc.), before
we can help others and understand what we have to do?
Believing in the RIGHT doctrines (set of truth claims) is extremely important. If you believe in FALSE doctrines (depending on what they are), it may actually mean that you're not a true Christian. How so? Maybe you've accepted Christ for all the wrong reasons. Why? Because your understanding of who Christ is and what He has done, were all based on falsehood (false doctrines).
Whenever we see the apostle Paul getting all fired up and harshly rebuking people in the Bible, it's usually because someone is teaching heresy (false doctrine, false Gospel). He knows that getting the Gospel right is a life and death issue, so when people get it wrong, he does what he can to make them get it right.
Now lest we make the mistake of reducing the Gospel to one or two shallow truth claims, we should remind ourselves that the Gospel is extremely rich in meaning, primarily because it directly speaks about the nature of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), the nature of man (where did our sinful nature come from?), sin, grace, and salvation. And it indirectly speaks about creation (God's original design for humanity), Satan, the End Times (the 2nd coming of Christ and how He will complete the work He started), the Christian Life (we've been saved...so what? how are we to live in the here and now, Christian involvement in politics, education, the arts...) etc.
The point here is that even the Gospel--an apparently simple statement--is tied to many other doctrinal truths that may either serve to distort it or properly support its message. So yes, Christian doctrine is extremely important.
So if doctrine is that important, why doesn't the church (or churches) try to teach it more often right?
Here are few thoughts.
1. Truth (right doctrine) can be taught in a variety of ways. It can be taught via sermons, Bible studies, books, small groups, one-on-one discussion, and even movies. But another way to learn about a given topic is through a systematic approach (systematic theology). So instead of just reading through Romans and discussing what Romans 1 says about sin (common Bible study approach), you would (with the help of those who already studied the topic carefully) take one single topic of sin and see, not just what Romans has to say about it, but what the entire Bible has to say on that given subject. A systematic study of the Bible would include the doctrines of:
- salvation
- God
- Christ
- Holy Spirit
- creation
- end times (eschatology)
- Christian life etc.
Conclusion: Doctrine is always being taught in churches. Some teach better than others. And unfortunately, some just teach plain heresy. What's seems to be missing, however, is a systematic approach to teaching doctrine (systematic theology).
2. The main reason why churches don't teach systematic theology that often is because, for the most part, it bores people. Most people would rather want to sit in a Bible study that offers more practical advice, than choose to listen to someone share about the doctrine of God. Btw, a good doctrinal study would also survey how the Church has understood who God is throughout the centuries. This means that a systematic theological study would also contain a heavy dose of history. And you know as well as I do, that most people don't enjoy studying history no matter how well it is taught. I mean it's a tough subject to teach effectively to Sunday Christians who are just looking to catch the Eagles game in the afternoon.
Conclusion: Sound doctrine and theological study begins with the ability to think clearly and to read the text critically. The problem with most youth students, however, is that they're scatterbrained (can't think clearly) and they are lousy readers. Look, I
really think it starts by trying to think more theo-LOGICally
about any given issue that is brought to your attention. Seek to connect the dots. The Christian faith consists of various truth claims that are meant to form one coherent and consistent worldview.
If you really want to learn systematic theology on a consistent basis, read books that exposit Christian doctrine.
Put down the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" type of books and pick up books like "The Pleasures of God" by John Piper, "The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul, "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem etc.
Any church has to keep in step with where its members are. If the members are still stuck on breast milk, then you just can't offer gourmet steak. So one way to really bless the church community would be by gradually elevating your level of depth and understanding of the Word of God. You would not only challenge others around you to do the same, but you would open the door for more enriching church-sponsored Bible studies in the future.
| | |
| [Do All Babies Go to Hell?]
you
said all of us are born sinners=inherently bad. i understand this. so
this leads me to a very common question. do babies go to hell? based on
scripture, i'm going to assume yes. what i really want to know is how
do you explain this to a non-believer? i remember my friends were over
one time, and somehow we got on the topic of religion. they were saying
things most non-believers would say. like, "how is it fair that God
only chooses a few people (predestination) and no matter what other
people do, they can't get into heaven?" it's hard to explain God's
grace and holiness to people who don't believe in Him. so when they
asked if babies went to hell, i said i think they do. and i had no way
to justify it in their eyes, if that’s even possible. so i was just
wondering about this.
Do babies go to hell?
Some
reputable Christian pastors and scholars argue that ALL babies, because
they have not reached the “age of reason,” will be spared from
judgment. I believe that this line of reasoning completely
ignores “original sin”—the fact that people are born into sin.
Therefore, I wouldn’t be able to agree with the conclusion that ALL
babies will be spared from eternal death.
However, I don’t
think it’s right to assume that all babies will go to hell
either. It’s true that all babies are sinners in need of God’s
saving mercies. But it’s also true that God has chosen His people
before the foundations of the earth were laid.
Can a baby that
God has elected be condemned to hell, because s/he hasn’t verbally
(externally) professed faith in Christ yet?
Am I saying that a profession of faith in Christ isn’t necessary for salvation?
No,
it’s necessary. It’s the God-ordained norm. Someone hears
and understands the gospel message and responds to it in faith
(internally from the heart and externally through words and
deed). But could there be exceptions as with the case of infants,
the mentally ill, the mute etc? Would it be possible for God to
actually do the work of internally regenerating (transforming) the
heart of an infant or even a mentally retarded person? The
internal change would be there, but the external response would be
delayed till later in life.
Ultimately, I think we should leave matters of salvation up to God. He will save whomever He chooses to save.
He is the author and perfector of salvation.
But I personally think it’s more than likely that many infants, by virtue of being chosen by God, will be saved.
How do you speak about such things with non-believers?
Step-by-step.
You
can’t expect them to readily accept the doctrine of election if they
have no concept of their own depravity and sinfulness. When they
question God’s fairness (justice), they are using their own standards
of fairness and placing judgment on the God of the universe. But
from a Christian’s perspective it makes no sense for creatures to judge
the Creator. I think that’s one concept you have to communicate
at some point. Just slowly introduce them to how and why you view
the world as a Christian and leave the results up to God.
But I would also add that you don't want to make election the first
thing you talk about as if that defined the entire Gospel. If it comes
up deal with it in the best way you can, but don't make it the
centerpiece of your evangelism efforts.
| | |
| [How Should We Encourage Others?]
Agnes wrote:
when we encourage based on worldly standards, we say You can do it, or I believe in you. and you said that we shouldn't say that, so my question is, what alternative to you propose to encourage others in a more godly way? would you say something like, You can do it through Christ? honestly, that sounds really awkward, and maybe that’s because i'm so conformed to the world's way of encouraging people. but if saying something like "you can do it through Christ" is a more God glorifying alternative, how would you encourage non-christian friends? because encouraging christian friends with that and doing the same to non-christian friends can have totally different effects.
My response:
“You can do it!”, “I believe in you!”, and “We have to believe in ourselves!” are probably the most popular ways of getting people pumped up in our day. You hear it during almost every interview after a major sports event. Most players share that the reason why they were able to pull through and get the win was because “Coach believed in us and we believed in each other!” Ra-Ra-Ra!
Occasionally, you will hear about players attribute all glory to God and thank God, win or lose, for just giving them the opportunity to compete at such a high level. But in the eyes and ears of most people that’s just an uncool and unpopular thing to say. So not only are players pressured to stick with what the majority wants to hear (since that’s where their popularity comes from), but interviewers are pressured to interview the players who will say just the right things that will inspire their listening audience. This is an example from the sports world, but the pattern holds true in virtually all arenas of life.
What inspires Christians ought not to be self-exalting expressions that contain tiny grains of truth.
I say “tiny grains of truth” because I don’t deny that people (Christians and non-Christians) are given tremendous potential, having been made in the image of God. God made it very clear at the Tower of Babel that if people put their mind to do something, they could accomplish virtually anything. The human mind that God created is a powerful tool. To think, however, that people can accomplish anything apart from the grace of God is utter foolishness. We are not self-sustaining creatures. All of human life is sustained by the grace of God and whenever we forget that, as was the case at the Tower of Babel, God is not honored.
Self-exalting expressions may make people feel good about themselves and it even may encourage them to accomplish big things, but what should concern us is whether God is glorified in the process.
I admit that I do say things like “You can do it!” sometimes. But I normally say it to people who would know what I mean when I say it. Some know me well enough to understand that I’m not seeking to elevate them above the grace of God. So it's not that you have to tack on Christ at the end of every sentence you blurt out. What ultimately counts is the meaning behind the words you speak and whether the person you're trying to encourage actually understands what you mean. However, people who are able to interpret you correctly are hard to find and that’s why you would rarely catch me saying even the seemingly harmless, “You can do it!” It’s also because I’ve been taught by my own mentors not to get into the habit of making God a hidden assumption. If you want to honor someone at a house party, you would never stick that person in your basement corner next to the storage bins. Unfortunately, that’s sometimes what we do with God when we assume Him in our sentences.
OK. Now practically, how should you encourage people?
First, how should you encourage Christians?
Well, I don’t think this should be that hard. Fellow Christians shouldn’t think it’s weird to use the name of Christ especially in the context of encouragement. I think we should freely and boldly encourage each other via biblical truth.
Examples? Well, this could potentially sound corny, but I’m thinking of what I would say if I were given the chance to speak to one of you or even pray for one of you….
-Before a big game: “You’ve worked hard for this day, haven’t you? I think it’s cool that you get to play today. God has really blessed you with a gift and I’m glad I get to see you play. The way you honor the Lord through games like this is not necessarily through winning but through playing hard and playing with integrity. Leave the end result up to Him. Then you’ll be great.
-Big test or paper due that’s causing stress: I’d basically apply biblical wisdom here and see if studying with my friend or working together (being a study partner) would help. If my friend keeps on saying that’s he’s just too stupid to do well, I’d help him to keep his eyes off of himself (self-reliant, self-centered, self-absorbed) by reminding him of the Lord and our calling to look to Him for strength. The bottom line is that we don’t share equal intelligence with one another. But so what? Our calling is just to do our best and leave the results in God’s hand. He will use us (our intelligence etc) in the manner He chooses to. If our friends get fixated on all the wrong things, then we should do what we can to wake them up from their self-absorption.
-In the face discouragement: I have the entire Word of God as my arsenal here. Just pick a verse that has encouraged you in the past and use it with your friends to remind them of who they are in Christ. An example could be…. “________, I know you’re hurting right now and it’s probably best if I don’t say too much at this point, but I just wanted you to remember that your Father in heaven promised to never leave you nor forsake you. I know it’s hard to see right now, but He’s right here with us. He also promised that He will use whatever it takes (good and bad) to make you become more like Christ. He intends to make you more beautiful.”
Secondly, how should you encourage non-Christian friends?
I think there are always going to be a limits on what you can say.
That’s why friendships with non-Christians will tend to be much shallower, unless you have non-Christian friends that genuinely want to hear what you have to say on any given issue. I had a couple of friends like that in the past. They actually didn’t want me to sugar coat my words in front of them. They gave me permission to speak honestly and freely in front of them. That would occasionally lead to some heated debates, but that’s what the nature of our friendship was based on—honesty. Why settle for anything less? In public, you might have to, at times, tone down on the Christian lingo, but with your friends I think you should be able to speak truthfully in front of them. Our ultimate goal shouldn’t be to encourage people. Rather, it should be to lead people to Christ and share His truth with them. So yes, your sharing might have totally different effects. Of course it will.
pjb
| | |
| Somewhat might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"...Why not say..."Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
(Romans 3:7-8)
This is an argument that many people continue to use till this day, despite the fact that the Bible addresses it straightforwardly.
From a purely human standpoint the argument makes a bit of sense.
The reasoning is:
If God's grace and goodness are more clearly seen when I commit a sinful act (such as murder), then isn't it logical to conclude that there's some good in the act of murder that I've done? God's goodness can definitely be seen when I live a relatively quiet life, but ohhhhh can't you see so much more of God's purity and perfections when, in contrast, you see my own impurities and imperfections? If that's the case, aren't I actually bringing about some good through my evil acts. My sin is a necessary evil. That's why God shouldn't condemn me.
God's response:
If you think like this, you're just making it more clear that your condemnation is well-deserved.
Based on the flow of Romans so far, it seems clear to me that the apostle Paul is basically saying that Christians who have been heart-circumcised don't think like this. They've been given a new set of emotions: a deep hatred for sin and anything that would offend God's honor, a desire for purity/holiness, a love for obedience etc. It's just unthinkable that a born-again believer would seriously present such an absurd argument that would seek to justify his/her sin before the Lord.
Let's think about this.
Do we try to justify our sin in any way before the Lord?
Are there a set of new desires that have grabbed hold of our lives as heart-circumcised believers?
Are they weakened by your competing desires for worldly gain?
If so, let's seek the Lord in prayer asking Him to renew our passions for Him that our thinking would not become futile and absurd.
Clear thinking is godly thinking.
pjb
| | |
| What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:3-4)
God has chosen the Jews as a nation and before any Gentile could hear the Gospel, He has blessed the Jews with His Word first. And yet, there are Jews that don't have faith. Doesn't this fact nullify God's faithfulness? In other words, doesn't this make God's promise and commitment (faithfulness) useless? Doesn't this mean that God's Word has failed in what it was meant to do?
The answer that Paul gives doesn't make much sense to the modern mind, but I'm guessing it made much better sense to his readers in his day. He answers the above objection with "Not at all! Let God be true and every man a liar." Then he quotes from Psalm 51 and says, "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."
So what is he saying? What's his point?
First, let's state the obvious facts.
The apostle Paul doesn't believe that God's faithfulness is threatened in any way.
He doesn't believe that God's Word failed to do what it was meant to do.
Why?
Well, it must be because he believes that God's Word was never designed to save every single person who hears the message. So in the apostle's Paul's mind, the objection raised by his critics is based on a faulty notion of what God's faithfulness means in the first place.
This might disappoint you, but I think the answer he gives basically boils down to this:
"God is God. He is true and faithful no matter what you might think of Him.
Man might lie, but God never lies.
Whatever He does and however way He might judge people
is going to be right, because He is God."
That's my paraphrase of v.4.
One could probably also say that God is ultimately faithful to His righteous character or that God actually reveals His faithfulness in punishing unbelief, but again what I think it boils down to is the fact that we are really in no position to question God's goodness, justice, and faithfulness. He is who He is and He is awesome in all He does.
Praise and glory to the King!
| | |
|
