Does God Ever Take a Risk?

This is one of my latest papers for seminary. Please ignore the small grammatical mistakes. Well, I guess we will see if anyone reads this one. Blessings.....

DOES GOD RISK?
Throughout the history of Christianity, understanding of the providence of God has involved a diversity of perspectives. Two such perspectives view God as a risk-taker, while the orthodox view depicts God as risk-free. More Calvinistic scholars tend to emphasize the classical attributes of God and argue that God is risk-free, while open theist and process theist scholars contend that God often takes risks. According to a close examination of the Scriptures and their interpretation, the Calvinist perspective of trusting in the full providence of God necessitates that God need not take any form of risk.
Perspective of Open Theism and Process Theism
To grasp the perspective of God not taking risk, an exploration of the views that maintain the openness of God’s providence proves necessary. More commonly known as open theism, Dr. Bruce Ware summarizes the way in which this position argues for God lacking exhaustive divine foreknowledge when he states, “These scholars call the position they advocate ‘open theism’ because they like to make central the notion that, for God as well as for us, much of the future is ‘open’ and hence not foreknown or foreordained.”[1] At first glance, the position of the open theists does not appear as very controversial and certainly not linked to risk, until an examination of the theological corollaries takes place, as well as a critical comparison to the teaching of Scripture. Demonstrating the link between this unknown future and risk, Dr. Ware explains the philosophical argument of open theists this way:
At the heart of the openness proposal are the formative ideas that 1) the future is open, i.e., it stands mostly unknown and undetermined, even by God; and 2) as a result, the future is risk-filled, i.e., unforeseen and unpredictable actions and events can occur, many in relation to the unknown future choices of free creatures, which may frustrate God’s purposes to such a degree that God may or may not triumph over them. God, then, accepts genuine and enormous risks when he creates the world.[2]

In other words, Dr. Ware understands open theism to teach that since the future is open; God cannot foreknow or foreordain future events. Because of his lack of power or ability to see the future, God accepts great risk by creating, as well as the potential that future events might frustrate both his will and plan. However, open theism is not the only theological perspective on whether or not God risks.
Another model of the openness of God that has risen to prominence currently is process theism. Though this view is not really new in terms of its arguments and it is similar to open theism in some respects, this model of divine providence also denies that God possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Claude Stewart describes the process theist understanding of the omniscience of God when he states:
For example, God’s omniscience is affirmed in the sense that the character of the divine knowing is said to be completely and constantly adequate to its objects. But the content of divine knowledge varies (and here “varies” essentially means “increases”) with the changes in what there is to be known.[3]

Stewart’s perspective carries with it two very important connotations. First, if the content of the knowledge of God can “increase,” then his knowledge is not exhaustive. In what appears as a contradiction of terms, Stewart affirms the divine attribute of omniscience, and then denies God’s knowledge of all things. He views God’s knowledge as adequate in terms of character and the entity being known, yet God’s knowledge of the entity can change. As Frame accurately summarizes, “Open theists argue that omniscience means knowing all that is knowable, and since the free decisions of creatures are not knowable, ignorance of them does not count against God’s omniscience.”[4] This introduction of change demonstrates the second important connotation. Process theologians inherently deny the divine attribute known as the immutability of God because they view God as one with the changing processes of the universe. If both God’s knowledge can change as time passes, then he does not have exhaustive divine foreknowledge and experiences the risk of not knowing what will come to pass.
To maintain consistency within their argument, open theists not only deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge, but also the full sovereignty of God. Gregory Boyd, professor at Bethel College and a known proponent of open theism, demonstrates the denial of sovereignty and a limiting of omnipotence when he states:
open theism and classical Arminianism hold that God chose to create this world and give agents power to resist him. Only in this way could God create a world that was capable of love, for love must be chosen. In making this decision, God temporarily limited own ability to unilaterally get his way. But, as Scripture clearly shows, God has not given away more power to creatures than he can handle.[5]

Here Boyd denies the full sovereignty of God because he argues that God had to limit himself to create a world in which a true loving relationship could exist. Similar to Arminian thought, his argument lies in a need to maintain libertarian freedom because he believes that God would not compel love from his creatures. Explaining his definition of sovereignty further, Boyd states “If we take our model of divine sovereignty from the biblical narrative, centered on the crucified Son of God, we discover that God’s sovereignty is a sovereignty of love rather than control.”[6] Here Boyd redefines sovereignty not as the full control of God over all things, but as the love of God typified in the love of Christ on the cross. Yet, if God did not have total sovereignty over all things and the future is open, then believers cannot trust that the loving atonement of Christ accomplished redemption of sinners from the wrath of God. Hence even something as crucial as the atonement may or may not come to fruition, and thus it constitutes risk.
Similar to open theism, process theology must also deny the full sovereignty of God to maintain consistency within their argument. John Sanders, professor of religion at Hendrix college and well-know advocate for the openness of God, explains this denial of sovereignty common to process theism when he states:
The third alternative, process theology, affirms that all things are essentially or necessarily related. God and the world are involved in an ontologically interdependent relationship. The God of process thought is pervasively conditioned by the creatures. It could not be otherwise because the God-world relationship is not of God’s choosing. God is necessarily and ontologically dependent on the world: God would not have being or be who God is apart from the world. God needs the world in order to be God.[7]

Sanders understand process theism to teach that God is not sovereign because God’s existence is contingent upon the creatures he made and the world itself for his being. He even goes so far as to say God that God is compelled to have a relationship with creation. Ontologically speaking, God could not exist without the world in this understanding. Clearly if God is conditioned by his creation and contingent upon it for existence, then he does not have full sovereignty as defined by traditional orthodoxy. Sanders also relates that process theism flatly denies the aseity of God when he notes that God needs the world. If at any point the world would cease to exist, God would cease to exist. This understanding of the sovereignty of God denies that he has any control over virtually any aspect of creation and it throws his very existence into risk.
Aside from denying the aseity of God, process theism also argues that God’s ability to act in the world is restricted. Demonstrating how process theologians do not support the full omnipotence of God, James Keller states:
In their discussion of God’s power, process theists typically distinguish between persuasive and coercive power and assert that God has only the former. God, they say, lacks the power to totally determine the behavior – more precisely; the concrescence – of any entity; God can only lure (attempt to persuade) the entity to develop in a certain way.[8]

Keller relates that God cannot act directly in creation. He can only lure or persuade, thus creation possesses the ability to frustrate God’s desire. This ability to frustrate the desires of God stems from the process theologians need to maintain libertarian freedom. Since God only has the power to persuade his creation to a certain outcome, he takes risk every time he persuades because creation can thwart his plan.
Orthodox Perspective on Why God Never Risks
Orthodox Christianity argues against open theism and process theism because it holds that God possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Much of what the open models believe stems from a need to maintain libertarian freedom. Under this view, they try to separate divine foreknowledge from foreordination. Reformed theology answers:
And so, God’s knowledge of creatures must be grounded in the divine being himself. But mere knowledge of the divine being alone would not give God knowledge of the specific acts of humans, for it was possible for humans not to exist at all and, thus, not to act at all. And so, the simplest explanation of God’s knowledge of specific creaturely actions is that God knows what creatures will do because he knows what he wants them to do. That is, God know what creatures will do because form eternity he has chosen (willed, determined) what they will do.[9]

Here Robinson correctly asserts that God does have exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events because everything He wills does ultimately come to pass. This is the clear teaching of Scripture as seen in Paul’s letter to the Romans when he says:
For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.[10]

Here Paul explains that God saves believers based on His foreknowledge. However, as mentioned earlier, God’s foreknowledge finds itself linked to His foreordination. In other words, God foreknows and predestines because, in eternity past, He willed whom He wished to save. Because of his sovereignty, God’s will cannot experience frustration, and therefore, whatever He wills must certainly come to pass and is not open to risk.
Taking a strong stance against the view of the sovereignty of God as espoused by open and process theism, evangelical Calvinism argues in favor the full sovereignty of God. John Piper gives a correct definition of sovereignty when he states, “‘Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases’ (Psalm 115:3). The implication of this text is that God has the right and power to do whatever makes him happy. This is what it means to say that God is sovereign.”[11] Counter to the openness models, Piper correctly asserts from Scripture that God has not limited his power in any form. Because God is covenant Lord, the Bible teaches He is omnipotent and can do anything He wishes. The corollary from the full sovereignty of God demonstrates that if God has absolute control and power to do whatever He wills, then He never risks.
Another way that Calvinism affirms the full sovereignty of God involves God’s will and human freedom. Opposite of the views of Gregory Boyd, evangelical Calvinism expresses that God does not have to limit his sovereignty in order to give humanity libertarian freedom and experience a loving relationship with His creation. John Frame describes the simultaneous sovereignty of God and humanity’s freedom when he states:
This kind of freedom is sometimes called compatibilism, because it is compatible with determinism. Determinism is the view that every event (including human actions) has a sufficient cause other than itself. Compatibilist freedom means that even if every act we perform is caused by something outside of ourselves (such as natural causes or God), we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires.[12]

Frame understands that just because God has full sovereignty over all things, including the human will, it does not follow that humans are not free and cannot experience a loving relationship with God. Though God ordains the love of his creatures, they still freely are following their desires. Under this model of providence, the atonement is not open to risk. God can lovingly have a relationship with his creatures while maintaining his full sovereignty without risking and giving humanity contra-causal freedom.
Stemming from a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God, evangelical Calvinism opposes the openness models of God by affirming the full omnipotence of God. Wayne Grudem succinctly defines omnipotence when he states, “God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will.”[13] As Grudem here relates, God has the power to do whatever he so chooses to do. Though a plethora of evidence exists within the canon to support this concept, perhaps the most direct evidence comes from Jesus himself when he says, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”[14] If divine omnipotence means that God possesses the ability and power to bring about whatever he wills, then God never risks because what he wills must ultimately come to pass.
In addition to arguing for a compatabilist view of human freedom, orthodox reformed Christianity affirms that sovereignty of God in His divine attribute called aseity. Different from process theism’s understanding of God’s providence and existence, Wayne Grudem explains aseity when he states:
God’s independence is defined as follows: God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy. This attribute of God is sometimes called his self-existence or his aseity (from the Latin words a se, which mean “from himself”).[15]

According to Grudem’s understanding of Scripture, God’s existence is not contingent upon anything and He has no need of creation because of His full sovereignty. This directly contradicts the perspective of process theism that says God needs the world. For Scriptural evidence, Grudem as well as most conservative theologians turn to Paul’s famous speech to the men of Athens. Luke preserves some of this speech in Acts when he records Paul as saying:
The God who has made the world and all things in it, since He is lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things (…).[16]

Paul, in this famous sermon, expresses the idea that God does not need anything whatsoever. Paul directly and succinctly relates God’s aseity in direct contradiction to the paganism of that epoch as well as the understanding of process theism that argues God’s existence is contingent upon creation.
Classical Theism also differs from open theism and process theism in that it affirms the divine attribute of the immutability of God. Contra the view of the process theists that understands God to be evolving as the universe evolves, Bruce Ware describes the immutability of God when he states, “God is immutable not only with regard to the fact of his eternal existence but also in the very content or make-up of his eternal essence, independent of the world. He does not depend for his existence on anything external to him.”[17] According to Ware’s view, God does not depend on the universe for his existence. In addition, he also does not change in his essence as time progresses. Ware also notes that process theists explain immutability in a different way when he states:
That God is, then, immutable, though his being depends absolutely on the eternal existence of reality other than his own. And that God’s concrete essence prehends that always the totality of the experiences of the world is immutable, though the actual make-up of who God is in reality is dependent in a large part on the input of others into his nature.[18]

Here Ware illuminates that process theists, in their true modus operandi, have redefined another classical attribute of God to support their perspective, despite the biblical evidence. For example, one of the most direct examples of the immutability of God comes from the prophet Malachi when he quotes God as saying “‘ For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.’”[19]
Objections From the Openess Models
When open theists and process theists object to the orthodox evangelical understanding of God’s providence, they formulate their arguments on misunderstood or redefined divine attributes and on Scripture, albeit incorrectly interpreted. In on example that typifies their entire viewpoint, Boyd attempts to argue for the openness of God by showing that God can change. He makes his argument from Jonah when he states, “The people of Nineveh repented and believed that ‘God may relent and change his mind’ (Jonah 3:9). Consequently, ‘God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring on them.’(Jonah 3:10)”[20] Here Boyd attempts to use this section of Jonah as a prooftext that God has expressed that he can change and is mutable. While Boyd’s arguments appear sound, they are centered on a definition of immutability that evangelicals do not hold. Answering most of the texts and interpretations that open theists and process theists use to justify their argument, Bruce Ware counters when he states:
So, although God may have known that the world would become morally corrupt (Gen. 6:5-6), that Nineveh would repent (Jonah 3:5-10), that Moses would plead for his people (Ex. 32:11-14), and that Saul would fail as king (1 Sam. 13:8-14; 15:1-9), nonetheless God may experience internally and express outwardly appropriate moral responses to these changed situations when they occur in history. That is, he may literally change in emotional disposition and become angry over increasing moral evil and flagrant disobedience, or he may show mercy in relation to repentance or urgent prayer. And, this may occur in historical interaction with his human creatures, even though he knows, from eternity past, precisely what would occur and what his response would be.[21]

Here Ware gives the correct definition of immutability whereby evangelicals believe that God can show real emotion or regret to actual situations because this does not constitute a change in His essence. In addition, Ware explains that God can show an emotive change while simultaneously maintaining his foreknowledge of particular events. Hence, evangelicals would argue that the bulk of Scripture argues that God never appears depicted as a risk-taker.
Though open theism and process theism strongly argue that God takes risks, a survey of the both theological and Scriptural evidence proves this concept as false. Both sides of this argument, the openness proponents and Reformed evangelical Christians, cite Scripture to support their perspective. Yet, as the evidence espouses, the Scriptures demonstrate that God never risks because of the many attributes that support his providence: his wisdom, his omnipotence, his exhaustive foreknowledge, and his full sovereignty.

Bibliography


Boyd, Gregory, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2001.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002.

Frame, John M. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Keller, James A. “The Power of God and Miracles in Process Theism.” Journal for the American Journal of Religion 63 (1995): 105-126.

Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. New York, NY: Multnomah Books, 2003.

Robinson, Michael D. The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism. New York, NY: University Press of America, 2003.

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007.

Stewart, Claude Y. “Process Theology: An Alternative Model for Christian Thinking.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982): 113-130.

Ware, Bruce A. “An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (1986): 431-446.

Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.

[1] Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 18.
[2] Ibid, 143.

[3] Claude Y. Stewart, “Process Theology: An Alternative Model for Christian Thinking,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982): 120.
[4] John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001), 34.

[5] James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, Paul Helm. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 43-44.

[6] Ibid, 44.
[7] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2007), 162.
[8] James A. Keller, “The Power of God and Miracles in Process Theism,” Journal for the American Academy of Religion 63 (1995): 106.

[9] Michael D. Robinson, The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinsim, Arminianism, and Open Theism (New York, NY: University Press of America, 2003), 33.

[10] Romans 8: 29-30 NASB.

[11] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist ( New York, NY: Multnomah Books, 2003), 32.
[12] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002), 136.

[13] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 216.

[14] Matthew 19:26b NASB.
[15] Ibid, 160-161.

[16] Acts 17: 24-25 NASB.

[17] Bruce A. Ware, “An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God,” JETS 29 (1986): 436.

[18] Ibid, 435.

[19] Malachi 3:6 NASB.

[20] Gregory Boyd, Divine Foreknowledge, 36.

[21] Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lessor Glory, 91-92.

We All Began As Something Else - My Perspective on Adoption

This morning, I am doing something absolutely crazy...I am mailing off our adoption forms. I would be lying if I didn't tell you that I am truly excited about this whole process. As adoption has been at the forefront of my brain as of late, I must admit that I have been amazed at how it appears in the Christian Worldview. The truth is....we all began as something else. Before we came to faith in Christ, we were lost orphans. Now that we are redeemed, we understand that the religion that God loves best is taking care of the very things we once were. How insightful, how merciful, how sovereign is the God that we serve. He called you and me out of darkness, so that we may be used by him to call others out of the same bleak place. One way of doing this is by expanding both our literal and our spiritual families through the power of the gospel. I know this may sound rather stupid coming from someone in seminary, but isn't it amazing how much the gospel can not only transform individuals, but can transform families? First, God makes one unit out of two people, then he allows this unit to expand their joy by bringing in a child. As Christian couples that view themselves in the shadow of the cross and know the wonderful blessing of being image-bearers of God, this new child may look different, may smell different, may even speak a different language, but to them and to me, that does not matter. After all, we are all grafted in to the vine. And really, God calls us to love people, period. But how hard is it to love someone that is exactly like you. So consider this, adopt a child or help someone to adopt. It truly is kingdom work.

Christian Questions and Answers for Adoption Forms - My Personal Manifesto on Faith?

Christian Questionnaire Answers


Who is Jesus Christ?

Jesus is the second member of the Godhead sent by the Father to take on human flesh, live a sinless life, and be crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected, that those who come to believe in Him might have everlasting life. He is both fully God and fully man, born from the virgin Mary, and was the sacrifice or propitiation for our sin. Through His work on the cross, He bore the wrath of God the Father for the sins of those whom He loved in our stead, making a payment of infinite value to God Himself for our transgressions. He is both Lord, Savior, Prophet, Priest, and King in our lives. He died for our sins and will one day come again to gather His Church to rule with Him. To be as succinct as possible, He is both our personal Lord to whom we submit, and our personal Savior to whom we owe all the praise honor and glory. We believe that all of Scripture speaks to the above-mentioned facts.

How does one become a Christian?

One becomes a Christian by grace through faith in Christ alone; it is solely a work of God and cannot be earned by man. (Ephesians 2:8-9). Specifically, the Apostle Paul goes even further in Romans 10:9 to say that “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” To become a Christian, one must confess their guilty status as a sinner, truly repent of their offenses to God, believe that He was raised from the dead, and humbly submit themselves to Christ and accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior.

What does it mean to be born-again or to be born of God as mentioned in Bible passages such as John 3:3-8 and 1 John 3:9, 5:1, and 5:4?

John 3:3-8 is the passage where Jesus is teaching Nicodemus concerning the regeneration of the believer. Nicodemus is somewhat confused by this need to be born again, mistaking Jesus’ words to imply a need for a physical rebirth. What Scripture teaches that Jesus meant by being born again is that the Holy Spirit imparts to us a new spiritual and eternal life. When we are regenerated, we are no longer dead in our transgressions but are able to respond to the call of the Holy Spirit to trust in Christ as our Lord and Savior for our salvation. In 1 John 3:9, John here describes the primary evidence that someone truly is born again. If someone has truly accepted Jesus Christ, then they will not habitually sin because the Spirit, or “seed” as it is referred to in this passage, remains in the believer and transforms their desire to practice sin into a desire to please God through righteousness. In I John 5:1, John again mentions the new birth or what it means to be born again in connection with the God the Father. This verse explains that at the moment we are born again through the Holy Spirit enabling us to believe in Christ as the Messiah, we become children of God the Father which is proved by an intense love for Jesus His Son. Later on in verse 4, John explains that the born again believer is victorious because he able to overcome Satan and the sinful aspects of this world through his faith in Christ.

How do you know that you have complete assurance that you are going to heaven? What Bible verses can you name that give you this assurance?

To answer the first part of the question, we believe that we have complete assurance that we are going to heaven because the Word of God teaches the eternal security of the believer. If one is truly saved by God, then His salvation is impossible to thwart. See the following verses for support of this idea (these are just a quick list, again, we would argue that the entire canon of Scripture argues for this teaching):

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.” Ephesians 1:12-14

“Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.” 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

“Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge.” 2 Corinthians 5:5

“Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, ‘For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ But in all things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:35-39

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40

If you stood before Christ and he asked, “Why should I let you into heaven?”, what would be your response?

First, we would hit our knees before our God and say that, though we do not deserve to enter into heaven, we can because we accepted the free gift of salvation that Christ himself provided for sinners like us through His death on the cross as testified about in His own words i.e. the Bible.

Who is and what are some of the functions of the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. First mentioned in Genesis 1:2, He appears throughout the Old Testament and empowers the followers of God to do special works according to the Father’s will. In the New Testament, Jesus describes the Spirit as “the Helper” that will “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.” John 16:8. As far as functions go, the Spirit is the basic presence of God manifested in the world and in believers. In terms of specific functions, He inspired the writers of Scripture, calls believers to repentance by convicting them of their sin, regenerates believers, aids in the sanctification and eventual glorification of believers, helps in the perseverance, prayers, and overall unity of believers, and testifies to the glory of Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father.

How do you deal with the sin problem in your life?

Because we believe in the total depravity of humanity, we would contend that the Word of God teaches Jesus deals with our sin problem once and for all in His atoning sacrifice on the cross. However, even though we are redeemed, believers still continue to struggle with sin in our lives. We deal with the problem of being sinners not yet glorified by confessing our sin to one another, being a part of a local church for corporate worship where we regularly hear the preaching of the Word that convicts of sin, and by attending small groups where believers hold each other accountable for their sin and obedience to Christ. Though Christ cleanses us from all sin without any human help, we do believe that we have a responsibility to pursue righteous living in an attempt to be holy as God himself is holy. 1 Peter 1:16. In addition, though we continually struggle with temptations of our fleshly nature, we know that God always will not allow us to be tested by more than we can stand and he will always provide us with a way to escape temptation as taught in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

What do you believe a person is to do to grow spiritually?

First, we would argue that a constant and disciplined reading of the Word of God helps us to grow spiritually because this is His revelation concerning Himself. The Word is the primary tool for the conviction of sin, for the preaching that will bear the message of salvation, and one of the primary agents of sanctification. In Psalm 1:1-2, David teaches that “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” This Psalm connects spiritual blessings and maturity with a passion for the Word. God’s message to believers is critical for growth as a Christian. Second, we believe that believers should come together as a community on a constant basis for the common purpose of glorifying God and holding each other accountable concerning our sin. Luke’s testimony of the early church in Acts teaches, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Acts 2:42. You cannot do Christianity alone. Even in Genesis, God said that it was not good for man to be alone. Having a strong faith community to mentor, correct, encourage, discipline, love and cherish believers and all out of a love for God and His glory is absolutely vital for spiritual maturity. You will notice that it mentions the apostles’ teaching; this is another way of stating the significance of Scripture. Lastly, the believer must make a daily decision to die to self, to personally kill their own sin by trying live as Christ did. Jesus himself once said “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” This means a constant battle must be waged everyday for the believer. We must lay down our selfishness and pick up the righteousness that only Christ can give. We must follow in the footsteps of Joshua and choose everyday which God we are going to serve: the one who sent His Son to die for our sins or the sick parodies we make ourselves out to be.

Do you have a time when you pray and read God’s Word?

Yes. We strive to have a family devotion every night possible that includes both prayer and the reading of Scripture. This will continue with our children when God so chooses to bless us with them.

Do you regularly attend a church? What denomination or type of church do you attend?

Yes. We attend a local Southern Baptist Church.

Adoption

So....Libby and I are right in the middle of a serious discussion about adopting a child. Suffice it to say, this has caused me to think alot about a variety of things lately. Am I ready to be a father? Will I be a great dad like mine was? How will I teach my child about Christ? Our church has a big emphasis on adoption, and we feel like the Lord has really led us in this direction. Considering that all believers are actually orphans that end up being adopted by God through the blood of his Son, we think it will be a wonderful way to love a child, share the gospel with the child and others, as well as allowing us the privilige of enlarging our family. Keep us in your prayers, and if you can't adopt, then find out ways to help someone who can. Blessings....

Capital Punishment

Disclaimer: This is not my best work I have ever done, but it is recent and probably too broad, but here it is anyway.


Capital punishment spans the history of the ages from the time of Genesis to the present day. Christians, both conservative and liberal, continue to struggle over the ethical ramifications of this practice. Both sides in this debate seek to ground their arguments in the foundational principle of Scripture. While the Bible does authorize the use of capital punishment in certain contexts, a thorough examination of Scripture and the relevant moral arguments requires Christians to realize that supporting the death penalty in modern times contradicts the sanctity of life found within the Bible and the emphasis on the transforming redemptive power of Christ.
Perspectives on Capital Punishment
Within Christianity, there are two respected views concerning capital punishment. Some evangelicals hold and teach that Scripture supports the current use of the death penalty within modern society. The focal point of their argument stems from the words of God with Noah after the flood. As God is making a covenant with Noah, he states, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”[1] The key to understanding this text rests in the way in which humanity shows disrespect for the divine prerogative in creation. As Charles notes about those who oppose the death penalty, “Abolitionists normally fail to confront with painful honesty the ethical imperatives of Genesis 9. Premeditated murder constitutes the initiation of force against an innocent person and the ultimate expression of despising divine authority.”[2] Charles explains that the moral imperative of capital punishment reveals that God views the murder of the innocent as an affront to His sovereign right to create life. The violation of His right has only one appropriate punishment to provide justice that will meet God’s standard, and that punishment is the death of the murderer. There is also a mandate within the Mosaic Law that supports the death penalty when it states, “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.”[3] This verse serves as proof that God supports the use of death for achieving justice and Baker notes that this verse constitutes a logical extension of the evidence found in Genesis 9:6.[4] Scholars holding the same perspective also cite many passages from the New Testament favoring their position. John MacArthur notes that when Jesus stops Peter from using the sword in Matthew chapter 26, “he was reminding His disciple that the penalty for his killing one of Jesus’ enemies would be to perish himself through execution, which the Lord here acknowledges would be justified.”[5] In addition to the words of Jesus, the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans supports the concept that God institutes the use of capital punishment by the civil government when he states, “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”[6] Here MacArthur summarizes the view that, “Because the sword is an instrument of death, the weapon here symbolizes the right of civil government to inflict punishment, including the ultimate penalty of death for crimes that deserve it.”[7] The Scripture, however, does not constitute their only basis for supporting the death penalty.
Christians who support the use of capital punishment also make rational arguments that demonstrate such a harsh penalty will serve as a deterrent against possible future violent crimes of the convicted prisoner and others considering violent crime. Williams summarizes this argument when he states, “Moreover, as the proponents posit, the death penalty serves as a special deterrent. It is beyond dispute that the execution of the offender is the most effective and certain method by which the offender is incapacitated or prevented from perpetrating additional crimes against society.”[8] In this case, death functions as the ultimate protection against crime because the perpetrator will no longer possess the ability to commit any further crimes. Moreover, to anyone considering a violent criminal action, they may perhaps reconsider the choice about their actions if the consequence of the death penalty exists as a viable punishment.
The opposing view of Christians on capital punishment rejects its use for any crime. Like their counterparts, these people appeal to Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments to support their position. Geisler expounds on these arguments when he explains their position in this way, “The purpose of justice is to reform, not punish. Ezekiel declared that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but ‘rather that he should turn from his way and live’ (18:23 RSV). God wants to cure the sinner, not kill him.”[9] Geisler points to Ezekiel as a text that illuminates that God does not necessarily require the deaths of wicked people that have committed sinful acts. What God wants is the transformation of the wicked. Proponents of the view against the death penalty also cite passages in the New Testament as supporting their position as well. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus himself states, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”[10] In this instance, Jesus does not in any way negate the Mosaic law. Here Jesus gives a demonstration of how He constitutes the fulfillment of the law and points humanity back to God’s original intent as seen in the garden before the “Fall.” Dale Recinella explains:
In summary, the “eye for an eye, life for a life” of the Mosaic law introduces a drastic change in human affairs. The change, however, is by way of a law of limitation on human retaliatory violence. Because this is a law of limitation, Jesus can admonish us not to engage in any retaliatory violence at all, not take a tooth, an eye, a limb, or a life. He can do this without overruling the law and the prophets. He is simply making clear where God has been directing us all along.[11]

Recinella points out that Jesus, in fulfilling the Mosaic lex talonis, in no way contradicts the precedent given by Moses. Jesus demonstrates the actual intent of the law. Proponents of not using capital punishment argue that Jesus’ words in the above-mentioned passage constitute solid grounds for not using the death penalty as a means of attaining justice. However, these Christians that do not believe in the death penalty also make appeals outside of Scripture for their argument.
Christians against the use of the death penalty make several moral arguments against its use in society. One of the most persuasive arguments noted by scholars that hold this view involves the discriminatory way in which the laws on capital punishment function. As Sarah Zylstra noted in a recent article, “The divide is seen most clearly among racial lines. According to the Pew Forum Poll, black Protestants oppose the death penalty by 51 percent. While African Americans made up 13 percent of the population in 2006, they constituted nearly 42 percent of death row inmates.”[12] While the majority of death row inmates remain white, the statistical data shows that the number of African Americans placed on death row is disproportionate to the number of African Americans in society. Christians that oppose the death penalty use information like the aforementioned statistic to clearly relate that the justice system has an unfair bias against African Americans, and therefore should not be practiced.
One of the most common moral arguments cited by Christians who oppose the death penalty involves the possibility of the execution of innocent people by the justice system. Davis summarizes this point when he states that, “Opponents of the death penalty point out that its use inherently involves the risk of executing an innocent person — a miscarriage of justice that society can never reverse.”[13] Opponents of the death penalty argue that if the justice system makes some mistake, the very permanence of this penalty makes restitution for this mistake impossible. Furthermore, many Christians ask the age old question of do the ends of justice justify the means of capital punishment if the system can be wrong. In 2008 alone, there were four people who had been exonerated of their capital crimes by some form of evidence.[14] Those exonerated from death row provide clear evidence that the American justice system contains some possible flaws. Because of the flaws of the justice system, proponents of this view cannot knowingly support capital punishment due to the irreversible nature of the punishment.
Critique of the Evangelical Arguments Supporting Capital Punishment
Upon a closer examination of the texts supporting the death penalty, as well as an appropriate understanding of the death penalty in light of the entire perspective of Scripture and Christian morality, evangelicals must realize that the Bible does not support the current enforcement of the death penalty in modern society. For example, many Christians side with MacArthur in his above-mentioned understanding of the sword symbolizing God’s warrant of capital punishment in Romans 13:4. Craig Blomberg, on the other hand, notes this probably does not constitute concrete evidence when he states, “While verse 4 has often been used as support for capital punishment, the Romans did not use the sword to execute individuals, so this passage may prove irrelevant to that debate.”[15] If the Roman government that Paul lived under did not use the sword for execution, then this passage simply argues for the authority of government. While this New Testament passage deals with the interpretation of the text, there are other texts that may call the death penalty into question.
Even in the Old Testament, where those who favor capital punishment have their strongest evidence, some passages appear ignored because they examine the burden of proof for the use of the death penalty. The laws contained in Deuteronomy state, “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”[16] Here God explains clearly that circumstantial evidence that can be used in the modern court system does not constitute enough proof to condemn someone. In order for the death penalty to function properly, at least two people had to visibly observe the crime. Hanks summarizes the consequences from this provision when he states, “In other words, the level of proof required by the Mosaic Law passed ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to virtually ‘absolute certainty.’”[17] The modern American justice system contains flaws that were not present under theocratic Israel. Because of the Old Testament requirement of witnesses, some evangelicals believe that the Bible does support the use of the death penalty or have doubts as to whether the justice system can implement it biblically. Chuck Colson, for example, struggles on this issue and decided that he believes the Bible supports the death penalty. In his own personal statement concerning the death penalty, he notes:
My views were very much influenced by Deuteronomy 17 and the need for two eye-witnesses. I questioned whether the circumstantial evidence on which most are sentenced today in fact measures up to this standard of proof. I still have grave reservations about the way in which capital punishment is administered in the U.S., and I still do question whether it is a deterrent. (In fact, I remain convinced it is not a general deterrent.)[18]

Though Colson now favors capital punishment, clearly he hesitates over how the government can uphold the limitations on the use of the death penalty as indicated in Deuteronomy, as well as arguing for its use as a deterrent. If Evangelicals cannot discern a clear mandate out of Scripture supporting the current enforcement of capital punishment, then perhaps such a harsh punishment no longer needs administration upon criminals.
While Scripture must govern an Evangelical understanding of this sensitive issue, several moral arguments that flow from the principles of Scripture require examination. The first argument of importance focuses on the flaws inherent in the modern American justice system. Scripture is clear that in theocratic Israel where God literally led his chosen people, the death penalty had a mandate with a clear understanding that people had to have certainty before this penalty could be enforced. In the United States, since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1976, 130 people have been exonerated from death row by some form of evidence. Four of these people were freed in 2008 alone.[19] Clearly, the modern American justice system possesses the capability of making mistakes. Yet, as mentioned earlier, Deuteronomy demonstrates to practice capital punishment fairly, there should be no mistakes. Thus, perhaps conservative evangelicals need to reexamine their understanding of what God allows concerning the fair enforcement of the death penalty.
Another moral argument that stems from Scripture against the use of capital punishment flows from the evangelical understanding of the “sanctity of life.” This phrase, often used in support of the cessation of embryonic stem cell research and abortion, explains that all human life is sacred and needs protecting because human beings were made in the image of God. However, if evangelicals are going to consistently argue that all life is sacred and needs protecting due to the imago dei, and with the same breath, call for the enforcement of capital punishment, then a large inconsistency appears to have developed in their argument. By the rules of logic, either all life is sacred and needs protecting, or not. Therefore, either the lives of criminals who may have even taken others lives are sacred, or they are not. To maintain consistently the “sanctity of life” argument, evangelicals must understand that all life is sacred, even the lives of the most despicable members of society.
In addition to the “sanctity of life” argument, evangelicals believe in the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ in a person’s life. Yet, when the enforcement of capital punishment finds support from Christians, they are denying or at least complicating the possibility that some criminals may come to know Christ. Speaking for Christians who support capital punishment and how it relates to salvation, Geisler notes, “If anything, it should be an incentive to belief to know the sure moment of one’s death. It certainly eliminates procrastination and encourages sober thinking about life after death.”[20] This line of thinking, however, directly contradicts the ethics of Jesus Christ. Christ said in the Gospel of Matthew, “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you …”[21] In this case, Jesus does not say lovingly kill those who have violated the law. His command is clear; Christians are to love those who do them wrong because if they do not, then they are acting no different than the rest of the world. Therefore, Christians cannot love their enemies and also put them to death. In fact, the greatest act of love a Christian can demonstrate to an unbeliever is sharing the gospel. But, the gospel cannot be shared with someone who is physically dead. If Christians believe in the transforming effects of the gospel in a person’s life, then capital punishment countermands opportunities to share the gospel.
Objections
Within Evangelical Christianity, many objections arise to the aforementioned argument. One of the most common objections to abolishing capital punishment argues that the death penalty functions as a deterrent against violent crime. If Christians moved for legislation to abolish the enforcement of the death penalty, then consequently criminals would feel emboldened to commit further violent crimes. However, Christians that oppose the death penalty note that it already does not really deter crime. For instance, in a recent survey of 500 police chiefs around the country, 57% noted that the death penalty does not actually deter violent crime because criminals do not consider the consequences of their actions in the heat of committing some particular crime.[22] As a part of humanity’s sinful nature, people tend not to consider the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the likelihood of a criminal experiencing some mental debate as to whether they will commit a crime because the penalty could involve their death, does not appear as strong evidence for those who favor the use of capital punishment as a deterrent.
Another common objection to opposing the death penalty argues that those Christians who oppose capital punishment have a wrong view of the identity of violent criminals. Those in favor of the death penalty argue that, “Prisoners are not patients, they are persons. They are not objects to be manipulated, but human beings to be respected. The criminal is not sick but sinful.”[23] In this case, those that argue in favor of capital punishment are precisely correct. Most criminals are not ill, they are not patients and they do not suffer from any disease other than the infection of sin. Criminals are slaves to sin; however, and Christ made a way for sinners to experience freedom from sin and to have a relationship with God. Christians regularly memorize the Scripture that says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”[24] He directs the Spirit to literally transform the lives of His enemies into new creatures. Christ does not cure sinners; He justifies them through His blood and makes them into new creatures with the Spirit. As believers take on the mantle of the Great Commission, they must understand that the Gospel of Christ has the power to transform the worst of sinners into new beings, into the people of God. The truth reveals that the enforcement of the death penalty denies future possibilities to present sinners with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The sensitive issue of capital punishment requires prayerful and humble Christians to seek the will of God. As sinful people, humans have hated and committed murder in their hearts. All have lusted after the world and deserve eternal capital punishment. In His mercy, God provided a path of redemption through the blood of His son. In following in the footsteps of Christ, evangelicals should model the mercy of Christ by not enforcing capital punishment.

FACT SHEET[25]

The total number of death row inmates in the U.S. (as of January 1, 2007): 3,291.
The total number of executions in the U.S. since 1976 (as of December 19, 2007): 1096.
Texas holds the highest number of executions in the U.S. with a total of 444 criminals executed.
There were 53 women on death row as of June 30, 2009. This constitutes 1.6% of the total death row population. 11 women have been executed since 1976.
There are currently 35 states that practice the death penalty, and 15 states that do not.
A Pew survey from August 2007 finds that 62% of Americans favor the death penalty, while 32% oppose it and 6% are unsure.
In 1972, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia abolished the death penalty in 40 different states claiming that it violated the Eighth Amendment restriction against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In 1976, the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia upheld Georgia’s new death penalty law opening the door for states to reinstitute capital punishment.
In 1993, Maryland prisoner Kirk Bloodsworth became the first death-row inmate to be freed because of DNA evidence.
In 2001, Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber) becomes the first person executed by the federal government in 38 years.
Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church sanctions the use of the death penalty as a last recourse, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly called for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States in all circumstances.
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution in support of the fair and equitable use of capital punishment.
Of the major industrial democracies, only the United States, Japan and South Korea still use capital punishment. No Western European or Central European countries execute felons, regardless of the severity of the crime. The same is true in Canada, Mexico, Australia and much of Southern Africa. Moreover, many countries that still have death penalty laws on the books, including Russia and Brazil, have stopped executing inmates.
In 2008, Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Kentucky’s lethal injection procedure, holding that the administration of a three-drug cocktail does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” After a seven-month, nationwide moratorium, several states resume executions by lethal injection.
The racial break down of the inmates executed in the U.S. since the reinstitution of the death penalty in 1976 are as follows: 34% are black, 7% are Hispanic, 57% are white, 2% other.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, William H. On Capital Punishment. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1985.
Blomberg, Craig L. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction of Acts through Revelation. Nashville, TN: B& H Academic, 2006.

Charles, J. Darryl. “Crime, The Christian and Capital Justice.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995): 429-441.

Colson, Charles. “Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement.” (2009) Accessed 10 October 2009. Available from http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/key-issues/issues-in-criminal-justice-reform/capital-punishment/pf-commentary-capital-punishment/11563-capital-punishment-a-personal-statement.

Davis, John H. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1989.

Hanks, Gardner C. Capital Punishment and the Bible. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2002.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1994.

Recinella, Dale S. The Biblical Truth About America’s Death Penalty. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 2004.

“The Death Penalty in 2008: Year End Report.” Website of the Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed online 18 October 2009; available from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf; Internet

Williams, Alexander Jr. “Christian Ethics and Capital Punishment: A Reflection.” Journal of Religious Thought 49 (1992): 59-77.

Zylstra, Sarah E. “Capital Doubts: Supreme Court Mulls Lethal Injections as Christian Support for the Death Penalty Drops.” Christianity Today 52 (2008): 20-21.


[1] Genesis 9:6 NASB.
[2] J. Daryl Charles, “Crime, The Christian and Capital Justice,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995): 439.
[3] Exodus 21:12 NASB.

[4] William H. Baker, On Capital Punishment (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1985), 38.

[5] John Macarthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1994) 225.

[6] Romans 13:4b NASB.

[7] Macarthur, The Macarthur New Testament Commentary, 225.
[8] Alexander Williams Jr., “Christian Ethics and Capital Punishment: A Reflection,” Journal of Religious Thought 49 (1992): 61.

[9] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1989), 194.
[10] Matthew 5:38-39. NASB.
[11] Dale S. Recinella, The Biblical Truth about America’s Death Penalty (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 2004), 51.

[12] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “Capital Doubts: Supreme Court Mulls Lethal Injections as Christian Support for the Death Penalty Drops,” Christianity Today 52 (2008): 20.
[13] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004) 216.

[14] The Death Penalty in 2008: Year End Report. (Website of the Death Penalty Information Center) [On-line] Accessed 18 October 2009; available from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf; Internet.
[15] Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 260.

[16] Deuteronomy 17:6 NASB.

[17] Gardner C. Hanks, Capital Punishment and the Bible (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2002), 74.
[18] Chuck Colson, “Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement.” (Published June 29, 2009) [online] Accessed 10 October 2009; available from http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/key-issues/issues-in-criminal-justice-reform/capital-punishment/pf-commentary-capital-punishment/11563-capital-punishment-a-personal-statement.

[19] The Death Penalty in 2008: Year End Report. (Website of the Death Penalty Information Center) [On-line] Accessed 18 October 2009; available from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf; Internet.
[20] Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, 199.

[21] Matthew 5:44 NASB.

[22] Richard C. Dieter, “Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis.” A Report from the Death Penalty Information Center. Published October 2009. Accessed 1 November 2009, available from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf
[23] Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, 199.

[24] Romans 5:8 NASB.
[25] This fact sheet was compiled from two reputable websites: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ and http://pewforum.org/death-penalty/ , and all bullets are paraphrases or direct quotes from these sites.

Because He Lives

As I went to church this past Sunday, the praise team struck up an old hymn of the faith in a new way that I thought was incredible. The words to this song take me back to the old Southern Baptist hymns that I grew up with. The chorus to the song goes like this:



Because He lives, I can face tomorrow,

Because He lives, all fear is gone.

Because I know, I know, He holds the future,

And life is worth the living just because He lives.



As I listened to those words again for the first time in years, I immediately thought back to memories of my dad singing this song. It was one of his favorites, and now I realize why it is one of mine. Let us examine the deep theology from Scripture that this song expresses.



My sole focus this time is just the simple phrase "because He lives". This expresses an unapologetic belief in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. So here is my question, how does Jesus being alive really apply to my life? First, as a believer, sometimes life is going to suck...plain and simple. And if it just ended there, life would be pretty depressing. Yet because I faith in a living Savior that is literally working history towards the redemption of all things, I can get up out of bed in the mornings with a hope and a purpose. My God got up from the dead, holds the things of tomorrow in His sovereign hands, and works all things for the good of those who love Him. Thus even when I am discouraged, I can live my life without fear as my constant companion. I can trust in the fact that God's providence may prove painful, but in the end, it always proves to be good. This was what was on my mind when I heard this hymn. Whether its I Have Decided to Follow Jesus, or All Creatures of our God and King, or Amazing Grace, or In Christ Alone, or Were You There When They Crucified My Lord; take time today to think over a hymn....maybe even hum it to yourself or to your savior. There is nothing wrong with praising God with songs new or old, and there is nothing wrong with them reminding us of why life is worth living.

Biblical Worldview

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis Weight of Glory

Today's discussion: the Biblical Worldview. It's a buzzword in seminaries and used by philosophers of all flavors: both conservative and liberal. Worldviews. What is one you might ask, and you will probably receive a smattering of different answers, each one sounding somewhat similar, but also different. Personally, I have come to define a Biblical Worldview in the following way: Taking on the mind of Christ so as to use the God's self-revelation found in Scripture to shape one's perspective in all areas of life. But what exactly does this mean? It means that if we are true followers of Christ, then we must acknowledge that the Word of God, the Word of Him who created everything we have ever touched, tasted, or smelled, or seen, the Word of Him who is so comprehensive, so vast still speaks. In fact, the Word of God was there speaking at the beginning and will be there long after you and I are gone. Or as Isaiah put it," The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8) Those of us that claim Christ must drink deeply the draughts of the Word and share the man we found inside of it.

A part of our new birth, our sanctification is the metamorphisis that we undergo as we change from an enemy of God into his child. This change involves a transformation, a reawakening, a bringing back to life, an unveiling. As Paul tells us in Romans 12:2 We are to "not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewingof your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which good and acceptable and perfect." God literally changes our minds and thank goodness he does so!!!!! However, you and I have a responsibility to develop our understanding of how our faith applies to every aspect, every minute detail of our lives. What we read in a magazine or watch on tv, what we admire about an athlete, the way we speak to someone in an elevator, to how hard we work are all things that fall into the life that God has planned for us. We have a responsibility to know that Christ speaks to each of these situations. Sometimes, it may mean that we realize the Bible defines success differently than the world, and still other times, developing a Biblical worldview may help us to understand when someone is in desperate need of the saving love and atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul himself explains this importance when he states "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:2-4) For the believer, our veil has been removed, we see clearly now, yet the unbeliever does not share the same vision. The Devil has blinded so many with veils of the "I am my own God"isms that exist in today's culture, but by planely setting forth the truth, Christ can us poor wretches like us to deliver a message of mercy that shreds the veils of self-deification. Some no doubt think that discussions on worldviews and truth and the like are the realm of philosophers, and therefore do not apply to the simple Christian and his love for Jesus. But that is exactly wrong!!!!! Worldviews are important because the individuals perspective on things like who God is and what he did determine an eternal destiny that is as different as daylight (heaven) and dark (hell). We must develop the appropriate worldview (and learn about others so we can rightly understand them in light of Scripture) to rightly understand why we evangelize, why do we tell people about Christ. Some might say we must develop the mind of Christ so that we can have the ability to share our faith. Learning that the God of the universe has a message for everyone, that it applies to everything, and that Christ makes all the difference is a part of learning how to love God with all our minds. To state it as simply as I know how, a biblical Christian worldview takes all events and experiences and views it in light a sovereign God that is in control of every aspect of redemptive history. It is taking people, along with their problems, joys, experiences, emotions, needs, wants, dreams, sins, and together kneeling at the cross in worship of him who sacrificed so that we may live, so that we may see true reality.

To God alone be the Glory...