Monday, May 22, 2006

The DaVinci Code Cont.

Next, I want to consider claims 4-7. The Da Vinci Code draws conclusions about Jesus based on the Gnostic Gospels including that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. It also tries to show that the New Testament excludes women and that the early church tried to cover up the truth for fear that it would damage the church. Again, I find these claims, at best misleading, or entirely false and this is why.

I, nor do many other Christians, find the thought of Jesus being married threatening to my faith or the church. There would be no reason to cover up this truth about Jesus.

If Jesus were married, which he could have been (although I doubt it) there is no evidence that he was married to Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is first mentioned in Luke 8 as a person whom Jesus has freed from a demon. She is mentioned with other women in this text. She is also mentioned as a witness as Jesus’ crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Again, there is no sign of her having a special relationship with Jesus. She is mentioned as being one of the women. The closest evidence to her and Jesus being married is found in The Gospel of Philip, which is a Gnostic text. It says “And the companion of the _______ Mary Magdalene __________ (loved) her more than (all) the disciples (and used to) kiss her (often) on her __________.” The lines signify the missing pieces and the brackets denote the pieces of the text that are inferred in translation. As you can see, this statement, even if we take the Gospel of Philip to be a credible source, which I don’t, there is still a lot of speculation in order to make the lead from this text to Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene. At best the text says that Jesus loved her more than the others and kissed her often. Ben Witherington suggests that this could have been kisses on the head, hand, cheek or mouth. We have no clue.

Although Mary Magdalene more than likely was not married to Jesus, she is significant in the Gospel stories. This is very important to note because in the first century, women were only good for bearing male children to their husbands. In the Gospels, we see women who followed Jesus and played an important role in his ministry and the early church.
The Da Vinci Code Cont.

The Da Vinci Code makes several claims about the Bible and Jesus. As best I can tell, these are the claims it makes:

1. The people who were in power in the 4th century decided which books to canonize based on a political agenda. In the process, they excluded the books that depicted the truth about Jesus.
2. The books that we commonly call Gnostic Gospels are the books that were excluded, but they are the ones that contain the truth.
3. Gnostic Gospels depict Jesus as being human while the Gospels in the New Testament only show him as being divine.
4. Gnostic Gospels clearly show that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child.
5. Gnostic Gospels also show that women were a major force in the early church, but the Bible as we have it limits the impact of women.
6. The early church was forced to cover up this information because it would have destroyed Christianity; therefore they burned all the evidence. Luckily some of the books have survived and the story of Jesus and Mary has been kept among a small group.
7. The Holy Grail, which is the bloodline of Jesus, contains this secrete.

To begin with, I want to talk specifically about claims 1 2, and 3. The Da Vinci Code makes it appear that there were around eight books that could have made it into the New Testament, but the group that was in power chose to only selected the 27 that spoke of Jesus’ divinity. I am quite certain that this is not the case. Rather, I understand the Bible came to take the shape it did primarily because the books that were included were the ones that were use by most of the communities in the early church. In other words, the New Testament that we use today were the letters and books that were given priority by the early church and these were the books that led the church to form the belief in Jesus’ divinity. Here are the reasons why I think this:

A. The council of Niece met for the reason of clarifying the nature of Jesus divinity. The question that was debated was whether or not Jesus was “of the same substance” or of “similar substance” as the Father. The latter was the Arian position. The interesting thing about the Arians was that they defended their position by using the four gospels. The Arians lost the debate and the doctrine of Jesus was that he was of the same substance as the father. Therefore the Nicene Creed reads, “We believe in one Lore, Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father.” Just to make sure everyone got the point, it goes on to say, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.” Again, the thing to note is that the Arian still appealed to the same set of texts as those who believed in what we called “Orthodox Christianity.” This means that the Gnostic Gospels were not authoritative in the same way the four gospels were, even before the Bible was officially put together.

B. The Gnostic Gospels tend to be written well after the four gospels we find in the New Testament. It is suspected that the earliest Gospel is Mark, written near 70A.D. It is believed that Matthew and Luke were written sometime after this and that they both used a copy of Mark and a document called Q which is a set of sayings that are found in Matthew and Luck, but not in Mark. Then, the gospel of John was written in the 90’s. The earliest Gnostic Gospel written was the Gospel of Thomas, which was not composed until the mid to late 100’s. This means that if one were to weigh the historical evidence, the Gnostic Gospels would be less reliable than the four accounts we have in the New Testament.

C. The Gnostic Gospels themselves contain material that is directly opposed to the larger teachings on the New Testament. This means that the material that most of the church used to construct its belief about God and Jesus did not match up with the teachings of the Gnostics. For example, Gnostics teach that certain people receive “special revelation” and that this is the correct knowledge. This revelation remains secrete to the world at large. The New Testament teaches the opposite. It teaches that the church is to be a light to the world and the Jesus love the whole world and revealed himself the world he loved. Gnostics also believed that the body was completely evil and spirit is completely good. The New Testament teaches that all creation is good, including the body and that God wants to redeem all of creation and restore it to its original goodness.

D. The Gnostics believed that Jesus was purely a spiritual being, which would make him “antihuman.” Ironically, the Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus is only human and that the Bible teaches us only of his divinity. The truth is that it is the Gnostic Gospels that only teach that Jesus is divine. The Gospel of Mark in particular that shows us that Jesus is both human and divine. This is the position that the early church takes as well.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Getting Ready for The Da Vinci Code


A couple of summers ago I read The Da Vinci Code at the request of my family primarily. I read the book while on vacation in Hawaii and I was captivated by the story. As I read the book, I did encounter some things that I found far fetched and other things that I blatantly disagreed with. However, I read the book for the enjoyment of the story rather than its historical content. After all, I was under the impression that it was fiction.

After reading the book and had several people ask me questions about some of the content in the book. Most of the people were disturbed, but others were captivated by the new ideas. I realized that although the novel was fiction, its readers were quickly turning it into reality. I had some knowledge of the events the book was claiming, but I decided to read a couple of books on the subject matter, namely The Gospel Code by Ben Witherington and Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Darrell Brock. I found both books insightful and they reaffirmed my convictions as I read through the book.

In reading these books, I did find something troubling. Both Witherington and Brock quoted Dan Brown as saying that “if he had been asked to write a piece of nonfiction on these things, he would change nothing about what he claimed in the novel.” The reason I find this troubling is that while I find the book interesting and intriguing as fiction, I find it equally troubling as nonfiction. Over the next several blogs I want to talk about three claims that the DaVinci Code makes about the Christian faith. I will be drawing material out of both The Gospel Code and Breaking the Da Vinci Code. I would recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic to read both these books.

Before addressing the issues brought up by Dan Brown (and others before him) I want to echo something in Brian McLaren’s new book The Secrete Message of Jesus

But many people seem to share my hunch that neither a formulaic religious approach nor a materialistic secular approach has it all nailed down. Think of all the people who in recent years have read (or seen) The Da Vinci Code – not just as a popular page turner but as an experience in shared frustration with the status quo, male dominated, cover-up-prone Christian religion. Why is the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown’s book more interesting, more attractive, and more intriguing to these people than the standard version of Jesus they hear about from churches? Why would they be disappointed to find that Brown’s version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church’s conventional version? Is it possible that even though Brown’s fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church’s conventional versions of Jesus may not do him justice?

I think McLaren is saying something that the church needs to wake up to. I know in recent years I have become disillusioned by popular Christianity. I think the world wants the real Jesus to stand up. I pray that we as a church learn a valuable lesson from the Da Vinci Code. The church has the greatest gift and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the most radical thing that we can read. The church must relearn how to engage a hurting world with the truth of the gospel in a way that is not shallow or abusive. We need to understand why Jesus and the Bible truly do matter.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

What If Jesus CAme Back Like That

I was doing some research for my sermon this week when I ran across an interesting song by Collin Raye called “What if Jesus Came Back Like That.” You may not be familiar with Collin Raye. To be honest, I wasn’t either until I saw some of his songs. He is a country singer with several hit songs. As I read through the lyrics to “What if Jesus Came Back Like That” I could not help but think of Jesus entering into Jerusalem on his final week. The song begins talking about a hobo moving into town and living under a bridge, but the town’s people pass an ordinance that forces him to move. The song then asks,

What if Jesus comes back like that,On an old freight train,In a hobo hat?Will we, let him in or turn our back?What if Jesus comes back like that?

The next verse describes a baby born addicted to crack and nobody wants her. Then again, the song asks,

What if Jesus comes back like that?Two months early,Hooked on crack.Will we, let him in or turn our back?What if Jesus comes back like that?

The last part of the song goes,

What if Jesus comes back like that,Where will he find our hearts are at?Will he, let us in or turn his back?What if Jesus comes back like that?Will he cry when he see's where our hearts are at?

The reason this son reminded me of Jesus riding into Jerusalem is because when he arrives on the scene, the people are cheering him on, waving palm branches, and that laid their clocks on the road in front of him. However, when Jesus gets inside Jerusalem, the Gospel of Mark says that he went to the temple by himself to see what was going on. The next day he comes back and begins turning over the tables and then tells them that they have turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. I suspect that Jesus did not find their hearts the way he had hoped and he was filled with disappointment and anger.
This song and the passage in Mark make me wonder where God finds our hearts in the church today. How many people do we turn away from God in the name of Jesus? How often do we deny the name of Jesus because we are afraid it offends? Why can’t we lift up the name of Jesus and proclaim him as the hope of the world and offering that hope to everyone? I hope that we as the body of Christ can begin to make our Lord pleased by our action

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Where is your proof?

My brother is a huge fan of the radio show Coast to Coast. He listens to all the programs from science to conspiracy theories. He is also a dedicated Christian. The other day, we were both eating dinner at our parent’s house and he down downloaded a radio broadcast from Coast to Coast. He told me that he had just listened to a scientist named Dr. David Darling with whom he was very impressed. The scientist had given a two hour talk about gravity and the reason the universe is expanding at such a rapid rate instead of pulling together as you would expect due to the nature of gravity. He stated that there was a thing called dark energy that was in opposition to gravity that causes the universe to expand. (I am just repeating what Jason told me, I really have no clue, but it would be neat to learn more) After the two hour presentation, he gave a chance for callers to call in and ask questions. In the midst of this very intellectual presentation and very intelligent questions, a guy nick-named JC called in to ask this question, “Where’s your proof?”

The question itself is centered on a comment that JC thought he heard from the scientist (or as he calls him, know-it-all) that the earth was 1 million years old. In actuality, the scientist corrects him and says that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but humanity has been around for a million years. Of course, as I figured, JC told the scientist that his proof for the number of years humanity had existed came from the Holy King James Bible.

If you want to listen to the entire exchange between JC and the scientist, you can click on the link below.

http://www.whatisreal.com/archive/coasttocoast.mp3

It is quite funny to hear what JC says when he finds out that this particular scientist believes in God and goes to church. (Although he apparently does not arrive early enough for JC) The real issue for me, of several, is the relationship between science and religion. It seems that we have made these two fields of study oppose one another instead of allowing them to support each other.

I have to acknowledge up front that I do not know all there is to know about evolution or the big bang theory. I could not argue for one side or the other from a scientific standpoint. However, I do know something about the Biblical creation accounts in Genesis. (Notice, accounts is plural) Some people do not know that there are actually two different creation accounts in Genesis. The first one is in Genesis 1:1-2:4 and the other is found in Genesis 2:5-25.

There are some notable differences in the accounts. (1) In the first account the name for God in Hebrew is elohim which is the more generic form of God. In the second account the Hebrew word is yahweh which is the personal God of the Hebrew people. (2) It then follows that the first story seems to point to God’s transcendence while the second shows God as being personal. (3) Notice the differences in order. In the first story everything has been created before God creates male and female. In the second one, while there was no wild thing on earth, God shaped man from the soil of the ground. Man, or adam which in Hebrew means human, is then given the freedom to name the animals.

What do we make of these things from Genesis? I think the stories in Genesis are not given to give us a detailed account of how God created. Rather, they are there to remind us about the God who created us and to tell us about the world he created us to live in. The stories are theological in purpose and they explain the realities of the world we live in. When I go to the creation accounts, I am not trying to prove the scientist wrong, rather I am trying to find an answer to a question that science can never answer. I am trying to understand “why” I am here and learn about the God who created me. No matter what science learns, it will always need religion and it will always be lacking without God. As Chirstians, I hope we can encourage science to learn while I hope science will allow religion to help us understand our purpose.



Tuesday, February 21, 2006

The Only Cab on the Road


I was listening to a song on the radio called "Cab" by Train. The chorus of the song says, “Sometimes I think I'm the only cab on the road.” In the song, it appears that someone is trying to get over a broken relationship and they are faced with the problem of loneliness. I can identify with this song on a number of levels, as I am sure you can as well.

Most of us have felt lonely in our lives. We have all been in relationships that have ended, bringing us loneliness. Some of have been in romantic relationships that have ended, others have had loved ones pass away. Some people have had good friends move away or we have graduated and went off to college leaving friends behind. Anyone with children will (or you hope) experienced children leaving home. Anytime someone special leaves our lives, we can feel lonely.
I also think loneliness occurs without the ending of relationships. Some people are facing situations in their lives in which they feel like they are the only people involved and nobody can help them out.

Sadly, our world plays into our feelings of loneliness. With the age of technology we can even grocery shop without leaving our homes. Children no longer play out in the neighborhood, but they stay inside watching TV, playing video games, or they are on the computer. Sometimes we find that we do not even know our neighbors much less those across town. Our world is a lonely place to be.

As much as I love the church, I am not sure the church is helping with our problems. I am not sure how many times I have heard people say, “It is between you and God.” Where did the church go? No wonder people feel so lonely in our world.
In thinking about the loneliness of our world I am reminded of importance the Bible places on fellowship. In fact, I am convinced that the life the Bible wants us to live should never be lived in isolation. Fellowship with others is crucial to our faith. I think the cure for loneliness begins by recognizing that we are not in this alone. God has given us his Son, Jesus to redeem us and has established the church to help us live our lives to the fullest. Remember, you are not the only cab on the road. Let others journey with you in life.
What has Love Got To Do With It?


I have been reading a book called Debating Calvinism by James White and David Hunt. In this book White represents the Calvinist side of the debate while Hunt argues the Arminian perspective. I have been intrigued by the debate and I have to admit some things up front in posting this blog. (1) I am an Arminian. This means that I am going to be somewhat biased in my critique of this book. (2) I am also a Methodist. This means that although I agree with the position Hunt presents, I would have presented a slightly different approach. That being said, I will give my opinion about the book and the issues at hand. (Not that anyone cares what I think, but it is fun to talk about)

As I have been reading the book, I have to admit that James White is very consistent in his beliefs and seems to do a great job of articulating his position. I think it is quite obvious that he gets to the heart of the issues in the opening section in which he is the presenter. For example, in his opening chapter he clearly defines God’s sovereignty as God working all things in accordance with his will so that nothing comes about which God has not determined. This is clearly the Calvinist position.

He then goes on to explain how God can do this, that is determine all things to happen while people are still morally responsible for their actions. He explains this by defining “Compatiblism.” This is the view that says that on the one hand God determines all the events so that nothing could happen other than what does happen. On the other hand humanity is still responsible for their moral choices because they will to sin. They could not change their will to sin, but they still willfully sin.

It is important to note that this is different from another view of freedom called “libertarian freedom.” This is the view that there are some things that do not have sufficient causes so that a person could have chosen other than what they do. This also places moral responsibility upon the agent who performs the action because they freely chose to sin. This is the type of freedom held by Arminians.

The interesting thing about this book is that White acknowledges that his view of freedom is different from that of Hunt. However, it appears that Hunt never makes this distinction. Instead of recognizing the differences, he argues that throughout the Bible, people are given a free choice. This is a fact that White continually agrees with. Of coarse, his definition of “freewill” is very different from that of Hunt.

This is just one of the times that I felt Hunt dodged major issues in the book. Overall, I think White offers a far better explanation of the Calvinist perspective. That being said, I do think Hunt picked up on the key issue in this debate. The issue is God’s nature. The real issue is whether or not God loves his creation. If God, as the Calvinist says, can determine that a person accept salvation without affecting their freewill and that all who God desires to save will be saved, then the only thing preventing God from saving sinners is his own will. If this is true, you MUST conclude that God does not love everyone.

I will have to admit, again because White does such a great job addressing the vital issues, White gives two ideas in defense of Calvinism. He suggests like most Calvinist, that God does love everyone just in different ways. For some, he loves them with redemptive love and others he loves them through providing them life and material blessing during this life, even when they do not deserve it. First, he argues that God is justified in doing this because all people dissevered Hell anyway so people are getting their just reward. Secondly, he tells us that just like we are free in loving people at different levels, so is God. We love our family in different ways than we love strangers on the street. White claims that God is just as free (or more so) to love differently then we are.

While I appreciate that White addresses the issues, I do think they fall short. For one thing, we are told in Scripture that it does not profit a person to gain the whole world, if the person looses his soul. If we take this seriously, God can give a person all kinds of material blessings, but in the end, it profits the person nothing if God does not give him saving grace, which is something that a Calvinist believes God can do if he wanted.

Secondly, love is love, even if the degrees of it vary. Hunt points this out in the book. Think about this illustration. If I am outside of a restaurant and I see a person who I have never met dying in front of me and I have the means in my hands to save him. If the only thing preventing me from saving his life is my willingness to give him the means and I choose to not save him, would I not be unloving? If I choose to give him the thing that will heal him, then am I not showing love. This does not mean that I love him the same way as I love my family. After all, is this not the story of the Good Samaritan? Jesus tells the people to love their neighbor and when he is asked who is my neighbor he responds by telling a story of a Jewish man in need being helped by a Gentile who was his enemy. This illustrates that anyone in need is your neighbor. Now, if Jesus tells us to love anyone in need, even your enemies, I think we can expect that God will love the same way. God even loves rebellous sinners and offers them redemption. It is not that I think God owes us this because we are such great people, but I think it is in his nature to love us because he is God.

In conclusion, I think this is an OK read. If you really want to understand the Calvinist tradition, then I encourage you to read it. If you want to know the Arminian position, read Why I am not a Calvinist by Joe Dongell and Jerry Walls

Monday, February 20, 2006

God’s Love Languages

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a sermon entitled Stripped of Dragonish Ways. In the sermon, I said that responding to Jesus out of faith is the only way God will redeem us. In the sermon, I concluded by saying that God wants us to stop trying to control our circumstances and give our situations to Him. After the service was over, a lady came up to me who was visiting the worship service for the first time. She asked me a very profound question: What do you do step by step to give something over to God? I have to admit, I stumbled through my answer with her.

I have spent the last week and a half thinking about this question. My thoughts have been somewhat scattered, but I have sort of come to an answer. I have to admit that my answer does not involve a three step program for giving things over to God. Instead, my thinking has led me to this conclusion: The more you keep your focus on God throughout your daily life, the easier it is to give your struggles to him. Let me explain. As I have been thinking thru my own experiences, I have noticed that when I have something in my life that I am struggling with the best way for me to give that to God is to not think about the thing itself. For me, when I am spending time reading the Bible and praying, the issue or issues that I am dealing with tend to become non issues.

This leads me to think that the best way to give up control of my own life and to give control over to God is to put things in my life that keep me focused on God. As a Methodist, we call these things “means of grace.” “Means of grace” are the disciplines in our lives that remind us or help us experience God’s grace in our lives. John Wesley believed that the primary means of grace where prayer, studying and meditation on the Bible, the Lord’s Supper, and worship. He also felt that acts of service where important. Richard Foster’s book Celebration of Discipline is also a great resource.

I am a huge fan of the book The Five Love Languages. I think every couple should read this book. The principle behind the book is that people have different ways they experience and give love. A successful relationship happens when each person understands the love language of their spouse and shows them love through their love language. I believe our relationship with God is very similar. God expresses his love and grace thru different means and when we place those means in our lives, we are constantly reminded of God’s love and grace.

The key to giving our lives over to God comes when we think as little about ourselves and our situation as possible and spend our time immersed in the “means of grace” which helps us experience God’s grace. Understand that I am not suggesting that the “means of grace” will give us salvation. They are what it says, the means to an end. The end being a relationship with God thru faith in Jesus. They help us give our lives over to God.

Friday, February 17, 2006

God’s Justice and Love

A good friend of mine sent me this quote in an e-mail and asked me what I thought about it. It says, "Most people's problem with the bible is how a LOVING God can send a sinner to hell, while the Bible's biggest problem is how a JUST God can get a sinner to heaven."

I think it is a good quote in some ways, but I think it dodges a very important issue that the Bible does deal with. I think we have to deal with both issues: God’s love and justice. One cannot outweigh the other.

If we are to take this line of thought and deal with both questions we would need to deal with both God’s justice and God’s love. The word “justice.” means this: “The quality of being just; fairness.” So, I think the quote raises a good point. How does a God whose character is being fair or just, get sinners into heaven? God could do one of two things it seems. God could leave everyone in their sinful state and choose to send them to hell. This would be fair or just or he could make some kind of means available to redeem fallen humanity. I believe the latter is exactly what God has done. He sent Jesus into the world so that we might be redeemed. Jesus is the means for which we have salvation.

I think this makes good sense of God’s love as well. It is in God’s character to love His creation. After all, God created us and we believe God works providentially to sustain His creation. God has provided what we need to have life in Jesus Christ. I do think God desires the salvation of every person and has made Jesus, the means of salvation available to everyone. I also believe there are some people who will reject God forever. Notice that I do not think God rejects the fallen human race, but some people reject God.

As Lewis notes in the Problem of Pain, “In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrines of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe our their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing ever difficulty and offering miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.”

I appreciate my friend sending me this quote. I think it deals with a lot of issues we face today. I will conclude by saying that I believe the Bible gives us the greatest possible hope and that it is the revelation of God working in the world for our redemption through Jesus Christ.


Thursday, February 16, 2006

What is an Arminian?
Several people have asked me the question, "What is an Arminian?" The question arises, I think, due to the dramatic resurgence of Calvinism in the past several years. Some of the claims that are made about Arminians are as follows: (1) Arminians do not believe in original sin, meaning they do not take the consequences of sin seriously. (2) Arminians are relativist, meaning they do not believe in absolute truth. (3) Arminians are universalists, meaning they believe everyone will be saved. (4) Arminians believe in “works righteousness,” meaning that people save themselves rather than relying on the grace of God.

Just as John Wesley helped his fellow Calvinist brothers and sisters in understanding Arminians, I hope by reproducing John Wesley’s essay on “What is an Arminian,” we will better understand Arminians. Have fun reading from, I believe, a true man of God.
"What Is an Arminian?"
by John Wesley


1. To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.
2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those on whom it is fixed know not what to do: Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell what defence to make, or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it, than that it is "something very bad," if not "all that is bad!"
3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be of use to many: To those who so freely pin this name upon others, that they may not say what they do not understand; to those that hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying they know not what; and to those upon whom the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.
4. It may be necessary to observe, First, that many confound Arminians with Arians. But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ; we scarce need say, the supreme, eternal Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great God and a little one. Now, none have ever more firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the Godhead of Christ, than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.
5. The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS, in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the truth, till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State.
6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.
With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.
7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold, (1.) God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these, and none else. The Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity, touching all that have the written word, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not, shall be condemned:" And in order to this, "Christ died for all, all that were dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for every child of Adam, since "in Adam all died."
8. The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it, than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that although there may be some moments wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet, in general, any man may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of God he should have been eternally saved.
9. The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. The Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever.
10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows, both that they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they might miss of salvation,) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one, "Is predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.
11. Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.
12. One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!
From the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley, 1872.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The “Mere” of Morality


In CS Lewis’ book Mere Christianity, Lewis sets out to define “Mere Christianity." This means, he wants to tell us what has basically been believed regarding the Christian religion. In his third book in Mere Christianity, called “Christian Morality” Lewis defines for us the basics of how a Christian should live.

Lewis begins the third book by defining morality. He concludes that moral rules are the “directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of the human machine.” He also concludes that there are three pieces to morality: (1) fair play and harmony between people (2) Harmony with things inside a person (3) the general purpose of human life as a whole. He illustrates these three points by illustrating how a ship steers so to avoid collisions. In order for a ship to make it to its destination, it must stay clear of other ships. However, if the ship is malfunctioning on the inside, it may be impossible to steer out of the way of other ships. Finally, even if a ship is in perfect working condition and stays clear of other ships, what would the point be in sailing without having a destination? In the same way, laws for social morality make little sense if we are selfish on the inside. Likewise, the things we believe regarding the world greatly affect our morality.

Lewis then turns to the seven virtues which give us directions for running the human machine. The first four are commonly referred to as the “cardinal virtues.” The word cardinal means “the hinge of the door” and refers to the virtues that all civilized people recognize. They are the basic virtues that all the others hinge upon.

(1) The first is “Prudence”, meaning practical common sense. Some people would call this wisdom. There is a common misunderstanding about Christianity that people should believe in Jesus out of stupidity. However, as Lewis points out, Christ calls us to be as wise as serpents. Being faithful involves the intellect as well.
(2) The second virtue is “Temperance.” Lewis suggests that this has been come to mean abstinence, but it really mean going the right length with all things. This is not just about alcohol, but involves food, drink, sex, etc.
(3) The third virtue is “Justice” The Greek philosophers felt this was the chief of all the cardinal virtues. Lewis defines this as “everything that involves fairness.” It means honesty, compromise, give and take, truthfulness, and keeping promises.
(4) The fourth virtue and the final cardinal virtue is “fortitude.” Some have called this “courage” Lewis says it involves two things, (a) courage in danger and (b) courage in pain. Lewis suggests that this is the one that transcends all the other virtues.

One thing of particular importance is that actions of virtue are not ends in themselves, but are means to an end. Lewis notes, “[A] man who perseveres in doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is the quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk of a ‘virtue’.” He points out those actions done for the wrong reasons do not help build character and God is more interested in a person of a particular sort. This is important because our actions done in this life produce people of a particular character for the next life.

In the last four chapters, Lewis addresses the three Theological virtues which complete the seven virtues.

(5) The fifth virtue is “Charity”. This does not only mean giving money to the poor, but means love. This is not just an emotion that you feel towards people; it is something you actively do. The feeling you have for someone is whether you “like” them or not. Liking someone is not a virtue, but loving someone even when you do not like them is. A simple rule for doing this is to not bother with whether or not you feel like you love others, act as if you do and then you will find that you love them more.
(6) The sixth virtue is “Hope”. Lewis defines this as looking forward to heaven, not to escape this life, but to give this life its proper meaning. He suggests that things in this world bring temporary happiness, but nothing in this world satisfies us completely. He concludes that this means we were created for another world. When we understand that, we realize that the joys in this world are here to arouse our desires for the next world. Lewis says, “Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in’: aim at earth and you will get neither.”
(7) The seventh virtue is “Faith”. Lewis distinguishes two usages of faith. (a) In one sense faith is holding on to the things your reason has led you to believe in spite of your changing moods. (b) The second sense of the faith is when we leave it to God and put all our trust in Christ. It is trusting that Christ will make us more like him. This does not mean that we stop trying, but that we try in a new way.

If you have read Mere Christianity, you may have notice that I left out several chapters in the middle of the third book. These chapters deal with what Lewis calls “Christian morality.” These are (1) chastity, (2) forgiveness, and (3) humility. I think these virtues all arise out of the other seven virtues. Chastity involves temperance and charity. Sex is a good thing and Christianity celebrates it, however, it can be destructive if used in a way that it was not intended. Forgiveness involves charity and loving your neighbor. Finally, humility counters what Lewis considers to be the greatest evil, pride. He believed pride was the central issue that destroys the human machine and it is the primary cause of sin. It is the greatest challenge to morality.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Question 5: Will Everyone Go To Heaven Cont.


In my last post, I definded some different views about salvation. In the next several posts, I want to specifically answer the question, "Will Everyone Go To Heaven?" I agree with CS Lewis when he wrote, "There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, (hell) if it lay in my power. But is has full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words."

Along with Lewis, I believe the Gospels teach eternal seperation.

The Gospel of Matthew alone records at least 15 occasions where eternal separation is taught. (Mat. 5:22,29-30,7:13,21,8:12, 10:12, 28,13:30,18:8-9, 12, 34-35, 40-42, 21:41, 22:13, 23:15,33, 24:51, 25:46) Thomas Johnson divides these up into six categories of teaching regarding eternal separation. These categories are destruction, not entering the kingdom of heaven, outer darkness, being burned with fire, perishing, and being tortured. Of course when reading much of this material, we have to consider Jesus’ use of allegory. These symbols may not be literal in that eternal separation is not literal burning, but they do symbolize the reality of eternal separation. I want to turn our attention to two parables specifically in the gospels.

The first parable is found in Matthew 25:31-46. In this parable, Jesus says there will be a time when all people will be gathered before the Son of Man and he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then, the Son of Man will turn to the sheep and say, “Come, you are blessed.” He then tells them that they fed him, gave him something to drink, invited him in, and visited him. They then ask when they did those things and he tells then they did them when they cared for the least.

The Son of Man then turns to those on the left and tells then to depart from him. They ask why and he tells them they did not provide him food or drink, invite him in or visit him because they did not do that for the least of these. He then says these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. As is the case with most parables, there is generally one main point behind the story. Normally, its meaning was not too complex for its original hearers. Sometimes we have to work hard at it because we are reading the story with a different world view.

I think the main point of the story is that there are consequences for good and bad chooses. I do think we can draw the conclusion that some people will be eternally separated from God out of this passage. It seems that this passage is quite clear about the ramifications of poor moral choices. The parable does say the righteous go into eternal life while the unrighteousness go to eternal punishment. Thomas Talbott argues that the world we translate “eternal” does not always mean “forever.”[1] In this context though, “eternal” is used twice, once for eternal life and once for eternal punishment. We can either say that eternal life and eternal death are only for a period of time or that they both mean forever. Since Talbott believes in eternal life, I will choose the latter. Further, if we use the book of Matthew to help us in interpreting this passage, we can conclude this parable teaches the same basic truth taught throughout Matthew, that some people will remain separated from God forever.

The second parable we want to bring to your attention is Luke 16:19-31. Recently there has been a great deal of debate about its meaning, but I think it does have implications to our study regardless of whether or not it is to be taken literally. Jesus tells the story of a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus. Lazarus would sit at the rich man’s gate longing to eat the crumbs from his table, but was never fed. Both of them died, the poor man going to Abraham’s bosom, the rich man to Hades. The rich man in Hades was in torment and seeing Lazarus cried out to Abraham, “Have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip his finger in water and cool off my tongue.” Abraham then reminds him of how he did not comfort Lazarus when they were on earth. Then Lazarus asks if Abraham will send someone back from beyond the grave to warn his family.

There is a great deal of debate about whether or not this depiction of Heaven and Hell are accurate. Some say it is a story reflecting actual events and some say it is a parable. Whatever you do with this story, one cannot help but to get the point. After Lazarus asks Abraham to send someone back to warn his family, Abraham says, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” The point is that some people, no matter what God does, will resist God forever.

It is safe to conclude that the Bible does teach “eternal salvation” and “eternal separation.” As a matter of fact the word gehenna itself, which is the word Jesus uses for hell the most, gives this connotation. This word is derived from the Hebrew word ge-hinnom meaning “valley of Hinnom.” In the period of the kings, this became a place where a high place called “Topheth” was erected and people offered human sacrifices. Josiah ended this when he had it destroyed. Since that time and into the time of Jesus, this place became a place for burning trash. Thus, it was symbolic of “a place where the fire never went out.” William Crocket notes that in the intertestamental times gehenna was used to connote a place of eternal damnation.
Gehenna was a place outside the holy city of Jerusalem where the temple was and where they believed God dwelt. To be cast into gehenna was to be thrown outside the presence of God and to be separated from God. It was also “a place where the fire never went out.” Thus, the connotation is a place that last forever. Thus, in the word gehenna, eternal separation is implied.


[1] The Inescapable Love of God, 83-86.
[1] William Crocket Four Views on Hell, “The Metephorical View” ed. William Crocket ( Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996) 58.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Question 5: Will Everyone Go to Heaven
I like to rephrase the question, “Who will be saved,” by asking, “Do all dogs go to heaven?” (I think most people like dogs, so this is a good way to begin)
The first response would be to say Yes, all dogs go to heaven! None are excluded! All will be welcomed! There are no exceptions to this rule of grace. Everybody goes to the party. This perspective follows the idea of universal grace in which Christ welcomes all and no human being is left behind. Everyone is saved. Even hell, if there is a hell, becomes the last great place of redemption. Hell is not a place of eternal condemnation. This is the universalist view that I will be examining in greater detail.

All dogs go to heaven, except dogs that bite! Dogs that choose to do evil are exiled from heaven, condemning themselves to hell. They could have had heaven, but they have chosen hell because of their evil deeds. This perspective follows the idea of universal grace in which Christ welcomes all, but it also allows for freedom within moral choice to determine one’s eternal fate. God does not condemn anyone to hell, but allows us to condemn ourselves to hell.
This view I call the moral view. People who do good will find salvation and the people who behave badly will not. Jesus tells a story like this in parable form in Matthew 25:31-46 when he says that God will separate the sheep from the goats. The sheep are the people who have done God’s will and the goats are the people who have not.

All dogs that submit to their Master go to heaven! Dogs that choose to love and obey their Master will have all sin and evil exorcised from them. Their Master will rid them of the evil ways of their sin, saving them from the judgment of hell and for the eternity of heaven. This perspective follows the idea of universal judgment in which Christ knows that all are condemned to be damned unless a Savior rids them of their evil. Christ is Savior and will eradicate all sin and evil within them. This view I call the evangelical view. In this view, salvation is not dependent on our actions, because our actions are never going to be good enough to get us into heaven or earn God’s love. Our salvation is dependent upon us making a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Everyone who has made a confession of faith will find salvation and those who have not, spend eternity separated from God’s love. The main place this theology is presented is in the work of Paul. In Romans 10 he says, “If we believe in Jesus with our hearts and confess that he is Lord, then we shall be saved.”
We cannot know for sure which dogs will go to heaven! The Master works in mysterious ways therefore some dogs may get to heaven without our knowing how. The important thing is the Master is fair. The Master knows every dog and all dogs will get a fair opportunity to know the Master. This is the optimistic view. This is the view held by C.S. Lewis and others that our salvation may not be entirely determined in this life. God offers grace beyond death and we can still find salvation is Jesus Christ after we die. This kind of view is expressed by Peter in 2 Peter when he says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
No, only my dogs go to heaven! Only my dogs have been elected to receive the redemption of heaven. Some dogs have it and some dogs don’t. This perspective follows the idea of universal judgment in which Christ knows who is elected to be redeemed and who is condemned to be damned. Everything is predestined. Only the elect will be saved, spared from hell and saved into heaven. Heaven is not for everyone. There are some who are predestined for hell, while others for heaven. Only the elect will go to God’s heaven. The predestined view takes into account the moral and evangelical views, but then adds to it that God elects certain people for salvation and the rest God leaves to their state of depravity. Only those people who have been chosen by God before the foundation of the world can accept Jesus as their savior and follow God’s will. Because the non-elect have not been chosen, they will continue in their state of sin and never accept Jesus into their life and never live according to God’s will. Hints at this can also be found in Paul’s writing that “those whom God foreknows are predestined to be conformed into the image of God’s Son.”

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Question 4: Is Jesus the only way to heaven continued

Critiques of Pluralism

I want to begin our discussion of pluralism by examining three points from Gulley and Mulholland’s book If Grace is True. I believe these points will also be compatible with those of John Hick discussed a couple days ago. They argue that if every person will be saved, we cannot believe Jesus is the way of salvation, thus negating the divinity of Christ. This is the point where I question the integrity of their theological speculations.

If you believe God loves and will save every person, you can’t claim redemption as an exclusively Christian experience…. I still claim Jesus has a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I am no longer convinced this requires his divinity.

My first critique is not that pluralism asks us to redefine the meaning of the trinity, the atonement, or the resurrection, but that in redefining these terms pluralism has claimed that Jesus is not divine. Instead, they argue that Jesus had a special relationship with God. However, this same statue applies to other religious teachers such as Muhammad, Buddha, etc. In the name of religious tolerance, pluralism has lost the significance of Jesus. Sometimes it even appears that Jesus is presented as the bad guy. We are too afraid to talk about our love for Jesus because we are afraid of offending someone.
The second critique of pluralistic universalism comes from Jerry Walls, in his book Heaven, the Logic of Eternal Joy. In critiquing the view of John Hick, he puts it like this, “[A view such as this] requires Christians, as well as adherents of other religions that make exclusive claims, [such as the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and the Trinity] to give up what is distinctive to their faith and accept a generic substitute in its place.” Pluralism not only forces Christians to surrender the things that we hold dear to us, but those people who belong to other religions are forced to give us a belief in those things they hold to be exclusive. For example, Islam would have to believe that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet and that the Koran was just another religious self help book. I am not sure about you, but I do not see Muslims choosing this option.
In an e-mail, a friend told me that pluralism did not ask people to give up their beliefs. In fact, I think pluralism tries to convey the message that it accepts the beliefs of everyone. However, I believe its attempt fails. For example, in order for me to embrace pluralism, I would have to give up believing that Jesus is God and that the he is the only way to heaven. If a Muslim accepted pluralism, they would have to give up believing that Muhammad was the greatest prophet and believe he was on equal ground with all the other religious leaders in the history of the world.
The third critique is that Hick and other pluralist claim that we cannot know God for certain so we cannot judge which religion is the best revelation of God, so we should accept all of them. In stating this premise, pluralism is stating a truth claim about God, yet they do not believe we can know the truth about God. At best, they must conclude that we do not know that God is unknowable. Instead, pluralism is claiming to have an even greater knowledge than any of the world religions, since they claim no one religion gets it all right.
A fourth critique comes from the book Mere Christianity and is directed at Hick’s claim that Christians are no more moral than adherents of other religions. C.S. Lewis argues that we cannot judge the morality of Christianity for two reasons. (1) We cannot know for sure who is a Christian and who is not. He says that some people are not Christians yet, but are on their way while others claim to be Christians, but are moving in the opposite direction from God. (2) He also says that some people have better moral dispositions than others. For instance, one person, X, may have a bad moral disposition to begin with and when she accepts Christ, her bad moral disposition does not immediately erase. Person Z may not be a Christian, but may have been born with a good moral disposition. When you compare persons X and Z, person Z may appear to be more moral because this person was born this way. Instead of comparing X to Z, we should ask, “What kind of person would X have been without Christ?" Lewis argues that moral disposition does not change the fact that both X and Z need Jesus.
I want to suggest that this is not to say that Christians are superior in claiming that Christ is the only way of salvation. The gospel tells us that the entire world falls short of beign the people God wants us to. My claim is that Jesus Christ is superior in that he is the way, the truth, and the life. It is an exclusive claim in that Jesus is the means of salvation, but it is an inclusive claim in that Jesus’ offer of salvation is to the entire world.
Question 4: Is Jesus the only way to heaven continued

Critiques of Pluralism

I want to begin our discussion of pluralism by examining three points from Gulley and Mulholland’s book If Grace is True. I believe these points will also be compatible with those of John Hick discussed a couple days ago. They argue that if every person will be saved, we cannot believe Jesus is the way of salvation, thus negating the divinity of Christ. This is the point where I question the integrity of their theological speculations.

If you believe God loves and will save every person, you can’t claim redemption as an exclusively Christian experience…. I still claim Jesus has a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I am no longer convinced this requires his divinity.

My first critique is not that pluralism asks us to redefine the meaning of the trinity, the atonement, or the resurrection, but that in redefining these terms pluralism has claimed that Jesus is not divine. Instead, they argue that Jesus had a special relationship with God. However, this same statue applies to other religious teachers such as Muhammad, Buddha, etc. In the name of religious tolerance, pluralism has lost the significance of Jesus. Sometimes it even appears that Jesus is presented as the bad guy. We are too afraid to talk about our love for Jesus because we are afraid of offending someone.
The second critique of pluralistic universalism comes from Jerry Walls, in his book Heaven, the Logic of Eternal Joy. In critiquing the view of John Hick, he puts it like this, “[A view such as this] requires Christians, as well as adherents of other religions that make exclusive claims, [such as the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and the Trinity] to give up what is distinctive to their faith and accept a generic substitute in its place.” Pluralism not only forces Christians to surrender the things that we hold dear to us, but those people who belong to other religions are forced to give us a belief in those things they hold to be exclusive. For example, Islam would have to believe that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet and that the Koran was just another religious self help book. I am not sure about you, but I do not see Muslims choosing this option.
In an e-mail, a friend told me that pluralism did not ask people to give up their beliefs. In fact, I think pluralism tries to convey the message that it accepts the beliefs of everyone. However, I believe its attempt fails. For example, in order for me to embrace pluralism, I would have to give up believing that Jesus is God and that the he is the only way to heaven. If a Muslim accepted pluralism, they would have to give up believing that Muhammad was the greatest prophet and believe he was on equal ground with all the other religious leaders in the history of the world.
The third critique is that Hick and other pluralist claim that we cannot know God for certain so we cannot judge which religion is the best revelation of God, so we should accept all of them. In stating this premise, pluralism is stating a truth claim about God, yet they do not believe we can know the truth about God. At best, they must conclude that we do not know that God is unknowable. Instead, pluralism is claiming to have an even greater knowledge than any of the world religions, since they claim no one religion gets it all right.
A fourth critique comes from the book Mere Christianity and is directed at Hick’s claim that Christians are no more moral than adherents of other religions. C.S. Lewis argues that we cannot judge the morality of Christianity for two reasons. (1) We cannot know for sure who is a Christian and who is not. He says that some people are not Christians yet, but are on their way while others claim to be Christians, but are moving in the opposite direction from God. (2) He also says that some people have better moral dispositions than others. For instance, one person, X, may have a bad moral disposition to begin with and when she accepts Christ, her bad moral disposition does not immediately erase. Person Z may not be a Christian, but may have been born with a good moral disposition. When you compare persons X and Z, person Z may appear to be more moral because this person was born this way. Instead of comparing X to Z, we should ask, “What kind of person would X have been without Christ?" Lewis argues that moral disposition does not change the fact that both X and Z need Jesus.
I want to suggest that this is not to say that Christians are superior in claiming that Christ is the only way of salvation. The gospel tells us that the entire world falls short of beign the people God wants us to. My claim is that Jesus Christ is superior in that he is the way, the truth, and the life. It is an exclusive claim in that Jesus is the means of salvation, but it is an inclusive claim in that Jesus’ offer of salvation is to the entire world.