This is the Word of God

This post is meant to be primarily a personal testimony to the inerrancy of Scripture, not an argument. Perhaps, though, in some sense my argument in defense of inerrancy is also my testimony. I guess we shall see. Hopefully, you will hear more of an exhortation than a defense. This all originated from a discussion on the topic in the context of the historical nature of Adam and Eve on a comment chain on the Jesus Creed blog, and it has strengthened through memorization and meditation on the Book of 1 Timothy. Memorization can lead to meditation, and meditation always leads to transformation, as my Pastor Dale Shaw says, and models. This is the fruit of that experience.

BACKGROUND

I feel it would be productive to give some background on my experience in these things for any possible newcomers to this blog. To prevent stereotypes being made about me, I’ll just paint a picture to put with my words. The stereotype that may already exist could be exactly right, but at least it won’t be a stereotype anymore, it will be fact. I am 31 year-old, white male from the Midwest, married (for just over two months!), with no children. I am an operations manager for a polyurethane foam fabricator, which is the family business that my grandpa founded and that my father currently owns and manages. I consider myself to be a Christian who happens to be in business, not a businessman who happens to be a Christian, and I feel very convicted that it would be plain disobedience for me to leave this context to go to seminary and full-time ministry, which many have encouraged me towards. I believe the implications of being pastoral in the marketplace with a Christian worldview, a passion for Jesus, involved as a member in a local church, and committed to the authority of Scripture, are not only hugely positive, but also very important, and a calling for which I am very thankful and humbled.

I grew up in the context of a conservative, moral family that participated fairly regularly in the community of an Episcopal Church, where I was baptized as an infant, and confirmed as a teenager. I was presented with the gospel message and the Person and Work of Jesus Christ for the first time in the context of a fraternity at a large public university. Through a loving community and a bold proclamation of the gospel of grace in Jesus, I confronted and admitted my sin, confessed, and received forgiveness in Jesus. After I graduated, God exposed me to the theological foundations of my then-young faith through Scripture, and the writings of certain individuals. Through all this His Spirit convicted me powerfully of the supernatural reality of what had happened in me once and for all (justification and conversion), and also of the nature and fruits of what was continuing to happen to me as evidenced in an increasingly Christ-like existence (sanctification).

During this time, I was confronted with serious challenges to some traditionally held doctrines by people close to me. I soon discovered what those throughout church history have come to know over many years – as articulated by Albert Mohler, that “heresy precedes orthodoxy”. Or, to say it another way, it usually takes a challenge to a biblical truth before that truth is more clearly articulated as orthodox belief (like in the form of a creed). For me, it was initially regarding the Trinity, but then in subsequent years, conversations surrounding the gospel, the church, the historicity of Adam, the creation account in Genesis, assurance of salvation, and so on. There was an underlying trend in all of these examples that I am glad to finally be writing about. Every possible departure from or question of what I understood to be orthodoxy resulted from one main denominator. It always came back to the inerrancy of Scripture.

In the initial experience regarding the Trinity, God, through the accountability of a community of believers, and a passion for and trust in the Bible, convicted me of the importance and fruit of sound doctrine, and guarding the deposit that has been entrusted to us. So, you could say, I have been conditioned to be sensitive to whatever is “contrary to sound doctrine”, as Paul said to Timothy. I don’t think this is a bad thing, and in fact, I think it is a necessary thing in the church, although as you would expect, it comes along with sinful tendencies to judge and jump to conclusions about what people might be saying, or even to a false definition of what is and isn’t “sound doctrine”. I feel like overall I have done a decent job approaching these things with humility, discernment, and awareness of my own sin so as to not weaken my conscience and provoke myself or my discussion partners to anger. I do acknowledge I always need help from God and fellow believers to avoid an "unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people" (1 Timothy 6:4-5).

I attended a non-denominational (well, Christian Church), seeker-sensitive, missional type church for 7 years, and though I had a good experience, I couldn’t shake a lingering frustration and sadness at how vagueness on doctrinal truth, and an only average view and use of Scripture in the preaching and life of the church, seemed to lead to lukewarm Christianity. Not bad people – great people actually; God-fearing and people-loving people. But, in some cases, biblically-illiterate, thin-skinned, lukewarm, more-grace-than-truth Christians; whose uniquely Christian contribution to the surrounding community was not clear, and the fostering of saving faith was perhaps scarce. With a heavy heart, my fiancé (now wife!) and I chose to leave and have since settled at a conservative, truly non-denominational (though originally Baptist) church that preaches verse by verse through the Bible, and describes their mission as “igniting a passion to follow Jesus”. They describe their Sunday services as existing for the main purpose of fueling local and foreign outreach, through the transformed lives, prayer, and giving of their members. They hold a massive prayer service once a month and raised $500K before Christmas for outreach in Pakistan, on top of regular efforts they support around the city and the world. I was baptized by immersion in October, and overall we have been attending for 10 months (members for almost 8), and it is already quite evident what the “fuel” is that ignites this passion to follow Jesus – it is the truth of the gospel found in Scripture. It transforms lives and literally ignites the passion to follow our Lord and Savior, leading to Biblical community and selfless, fruitful missions. For me, I have seen clearly the difference between the lack of this not igniting a passion, and the presence of this actually igniting a real, lasting, cohesive, fruitful passion. I realize not everyone has this specific, clear contrast in experience. But I have had it, and my testimony is what it is.

Finishing the book of 1 Timothy now, we have clearly seen that Paul’s charge to Timothy as a pastor was to guard the truth that leads to life; not just the truth that leads to intellectual ascent; not just the truth that wins arguments; not the truth that changes depending on the modern evidence; not the truth that is subjective and interpreted and prioritized differently depending on your background, experience, or personality; not the truth that is kinda cool and interesting; not the truth that is without grace and love – the truth that leads to life; and the lack of which, leads to death. There is absolute, objective truth that has one interpretation that can be understood and known by man, and that truth leads to life. The Psalmist says, "My soul clings to the dust; give me life according to your word!"

So that is what we as a church are trying to do, and that is what I individually am trying to do, although I recognize this gets complicated (and some would argue unnecessary) when interacting with those from other backgrounds, church affiliations, etc. Obviously I recognize I have no authority over anyone online with my statements, and that no one is accountable to my opinion. But I still believe there is value interacting in public with views that seem to contradict what I (trying to represent Christian orthodoxy) believe to be not in the best interest of the Church. I was driven to the Jesus Creed blog because I came across Scot McKnight when he visited the church I have since left, and as we at the time were going though the Jesus Creed book. I have followed his ministry and been blessed greatly by it, specifically his winsome critique and caution throughout the history of the so-called “emerging church”.

IT’S PERSONAL

At the end of the day, I believe the debate about the inerrancy of Scripture has become quite personal to me. Someone denying the inerrancy of Scripture is closely becoming as absurd to me as someone denying that I am a Christian. I can tell you, I will not abandon my belief in it. Academics and apologists and scientists and atheists and journalists and doctors and professors and (God forbid) pastors have their work cut out for them convincing me that the entire Bible is not the infallible, inerrant, authoritative, completely true, verbally inspired Word of God. I like all those adjectives and I will continue to use them despite the increasing concern that such words alienate non-believers and are an embarrassment to Christians. My conscience is captive to the inerrant Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right not safe (adaptation on quote from Martin Luther). I will listen to those who disagree, but good luck convincing me. Stubborn, huh?

This blog post is going to try to strike a difficult balance between responding to those who take an academic approach to Scripture, while communicating primarily by means of exhortation to those who take a spiritual and personal approach, and who perhaps doubt or question it without a lot of experience with the academic particulars. My exhortation will hopefully be taken as a help in approaching the Bible so that people see Jesus more clearly. I want people to know and love and trust Scripture, as I do, because I want them to know and love and trust Jesus.

I don’t claim to be a theologian and therefore won’t, at this juncture, reinvent the wheel defending the inerrancy of Scripture from a disciplined, academic, theological perspective. Many have done this, and I am indebted greatly to them (in my generation alone: G.K. Beale, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, D.A. Carson, Michael Horton, etc.). More books are coming out all the time, which confirms the relevancy of this topic, and thankfully, the continued defense of it despite the pressures even within the Evangelical community. Perhaps my interpretation of other well-defended points in defense of inerrancy is for another day. Suffice to say I agree with these people and am thankful that my personal encounter with Scripture can be verified through objective study by those with far more brain power and capacity than yours truly.

I value inerrancy because I believe the Bible to be the revelation of a unique truth about a Person who is God, which cannot be found anywhere else (creation, human thought or discovery, imagination, etc). And the fact that the Bible contains this truth that is the access to this Person, and is reliable as a source for it, and is clear in its presentation of it, is essential to having any confidence that any of us can know it for sure (and therefore know Him for sure), and in turn come to saving faith and have a lasting influence on the world. I suppose it doesn’t have to be “inerrant” to contain this objective, absolute truth and be authoritative, but the reasoning for how it can be the latter without the former is not coherent to me. I am willing to keep listening. If it is God’s Word than it is without error. The working definition I am using of “inerrancy” is that the Bible does not affirm anything contrary to fact in what it teaches. I'm not concerned with what it doesn't teach. Inerrancy by this definition does allow for some limitations in chronology, scientific precision, etc. Inerrancy and authority, for example, is not damaged if the mustard seed is not actually the smallest seed (Matthew 13).

Hopefully I can convince you not to get bogged down with possible factual limitations in a date or a name. Let’s not bicker on the very small amount of discrepancies from the original manuscripts that, even if proved as “error”, are so insignificant to the narrative of the Bible or the message of salvation in Jesus that life is entirely too short to even speak of them. Let’s not talk about the historicity of parables, which Jesus clearly refers to as parables before he explains them, or about clear symbolism in the Bible that is not meant to be taken literally, and no one in Scripture or history, in their right mind, has taken them that way (i.e. much of the Book of Revelation). But let’s talk about the Book of Jonah, which Jesus clearly references as historical, not parable. Let’s talk about those things that are significant and matter because they refer directly to what Jesus said about Himself and about Scripture, and because they relate directly to the gospel. This includes, despite recent debate and supposed scientific and literary evidence, the historical nature of Adam as the first man whose sin impacted every person after him in the form of death and futility and set the stage for the entire redemptive narrative of a Sovereign and gracious God.

MAKING SENSE OF CONSENSUS

I have been interested to learn that some once held to the doctrine of inerrancy, and have been surprised at what it sounds like drove those people from it, namely, intellectual discoveries that seemed to render it invalid. This is shocking to me because a belief in inerrancy does not hold one captive, preventing interaction with other eternal truths revealed outside Scripture, or to anti-intellectualism. Holding to it should never have been dependent on discovery. The foundation of my faith is not an inerrant Bible – it is the Person and Work of Jesus who is the hope of the world. The revelation of Him happens to only be found in that Bible. This is my foundation of knowledge, even while Jesus is the foundation of my faith. Can you have one without the other? I personally come to see Jesus alive and new each day through the pages of Scripture. I don’t think we can encounter Him fully outside of this, though we try. He is the Word of God, and the Bible is the Word of God, so the Bible itself is to us the words of God (grace) revealing Jesus. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit and Scripture can be separated, which is to say, the Holy Spirit can never speak anything contrary to Scripture, and Scripture always speaks through the Holy Spirit to people.

I worry that ultimately what many who deny inerrancy are doing is building the foundation of their understanding of faith, and maybe even the foundation of their faith itself, on academic consensus. To me, that is unsustainable and a constant burden that God did not intend for us. The life, death, resurrection, and enduring promises of Jesus, and how they apply to us individually, the church, and the world, are not fundamentally “intellectually tenable” – they are foolishness (although, of course, the person of Jesus is plenty tenable because He is historical). If everything about our faith has to have an intellectual explanation and academic consensus for it to be considered objectively true, then you might not be left with much in the Christian faith. It is no wonder that it is the Christian “faith”. We need not apologize for the fact that we don’t (and won’t) have all the answers when ministering to non-Christians, and need not worry that such “mystery” in our faith will be an ineffective witness. We do not need to wait on any modern academic community (even the Christian one) to reach consensus on what the Bible clearly communicates as objective truth. In one sense, this is because we already have. Further waiting would essentially be waiting for heresy. To say we are waiting for additional discoveries shows that those discoveries are our foundation for knowledge, not Scripture, which not only puts our faith in something we can’t even know for sure, but also, I think, misunderstands the concept of “progressive revelation”. Revelation is progressive in the sense that the Bible is a narrative communicated over thousands of years, whereby what was less clear in the Old Testament is now more clear in the New. It is not a book of eternal truths, only, that requires progressive discovery or consensus for us to understand.

Besides, we already have a historic consensus. I am very skeptical of those who ridicule church history and orthodoxy more so than embracing it, as if the majority of it was off track. As Ligon Duncan winsomely pointed out in a recent panel on inerrancy at Together For the Gospel, the best of the critics at least admit that the church has always believed that the Bible is inerrant. If now one is convinced that belief must change, so be it. It is the less informed critic who tries to explain that “inerrancy” is not actually what the church fathers, or Paul, or Jesus, believed about Scripture. And it is the less authentic critic who changes his definition of inerrancy or authority to align with current scientific or secular trends.

MY INTUITION IS FALLEN

The other extreme from consensus when it comes to understanding the Bible, is intuition. Michael Christensen in his book C.S. Lewis on Scripture, says, “To fully grasp the essential message of the Bible, an intuitive approach to its literary images is necessary. To try to abstract truth rationally from Scripture or to reduce embodied Reality to absolute propositions is ‘like trying to bottle a sunbeam.’ The Bible simply is not meant to be read that way.”

Hmm. I would contend that if this was the case, I would be in a ditch somewhere. I’m serious; a ditch. Wet and dirty and miserable. And I’d have a worn Bible, and an old smeared piece of cardboard next to me that said, “Help. Please. My intuition is fallen. I can’t experience God and don’t understand this book. What must I do to be saved?”

What the doctrine of inerrancy offers me is confidence that my faith is real. Not dependent on consensus or intuition. It presents the Bible as a clear, true revelation of the God of the Universe that is all we need for life and godliness, and is the only source of the gospel that leads to salvation (however you define “gospel” – some version, hopefully, of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, for individuals and the nation of Israel / the church, and the created order). This is information that is not intuitive and would not be intelligible outside special revelation. Scripture is God’s witness to Himself, not our witness to His revelation. That is a groundbreaking statement. The Bible is not a human attempt to explain God; it is God’s attempt to explain Himself to humans. That is the starting ground for any conversation about the authority and nature of Scripture. And it throws out so many of the “interpretation” or “literary genre” or epistemological arguments almost right away. It does not matter if the eternal truths of God and ultimate reality are unable to be adequately communicated through human language or propositional truth. If God chose to reveal them and translate them in those ways, than the inability of us to communicate these things on our own is irrelevant. Hence, divine inspiration. Nothing is impossible with God. Why was Scripture inspired? So we could understand God and be saved. Francis Schaffer said, “If God doesn’t exist, we’re doomed. If God exists, but doesn’t speak, we’re equally doomed. But if God exists, and speaks, than salvation is in that speech.”

THE GRACE OF CLARITY

We know we need the Bible to make us wise unto salvation, but the question becomes how much do we need it, or do we need all of it, or can some of it be unreliable or with error in a way that does not jeopardize all of it, or even, do we define “error” correctly. I’m personally nowhere near being intellectually or spiritually convinced it is with error, especially on gospel-centered matters. My experience is that patient study of Scripture makes the “contradictions” less of an intellectual stumbling block. The challenge is, are we willing to consider Scripture to be authoritative enough to defend itself? We let science defend itself, so why not Scripture?

Inerrancy helps me understand, appreciate, and benefit from the clarity of Scripture. Theologians call it perspicuity. The Bible fits together and is self-authenticating. When you read it faithfully and comprehensively, the lack of error is almost obvious. The trajectory of the gospel (the narrative of redemption) and the Person and Work of Jesus holds throughout. I have learned this specifically through increased memorization and meditation of the text, and Scripture cross reference, which I consider a much more valuable use of my time than intellectual study outside the Bible (like in Ancient Near-Eastern literature), considering the shortness of life and the brokenness of our world. This is not to say that other study is a waste, or unfruitful – not at all. Nor does this imply that an intellectual approach to Scripture itself is unnecessary or unhelpful. Just, as a Christian, I can’t fathom considering intellectual study outside Scripture even close to on par with the study of, and meditation on, Scripture. This does not change at all if other study is your profession, just as it does not require my main devotion, as a Christian, to be the study of business principles just because that’s my vocation.

To deny inerrancy would include the “fallacy” of begging the question: at what point did we gain the authority to even make the accusation that there are errors, considering its clarity and cohesiveness, and the fact that we are not God? What the heck do we know? I have this picture in my mind of God looking at our discoveries like the equivalent of us watching a baby discover he has a belly button. Not impressive. When we discover things that validate Scripture, we glorify God, but don’t necessarily give ourselves new information required for life that was not already in the Bible. This is another way of saying that Scripture is sufficient for us; not exhaustive, but sufficient. When we discover something that does not validate Scripture, and causes us to re-think it, to God I see this as the equivalent of us re-thinking the purpose of our belly button. The arrogance! Not to mention the ignorance.

C.S. Lewis, whose own views on the inerrancy of Scripture were, to his own admission, partial at best, once said, “Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.”

The more we are dependent on “intellectual tenability” with stories and doctrines in Scripture, or our own intuition that couldn't possibly grasp Eternal reality cohesively on its own, the less we are going to appreciate the clarity and interconnectedness, which it has and is amazing, and the more we are going to drift into nonsense. This does not mean we can’t benefit from what our own mind or imagination brings to our experience in the text. It also does not mean we can't intellectually question (or answer!) certain difficult to understand texts – just as I believe the “interconnectedness” of evolutionary science does not mean we can’t question certain tenets of evolution (i.e. the creation of a new species through natural selection alone). The key point is that Christianity, just like any other worldview, is a faith claim, yet amazingly, one that does not require us to leave our intellects at the door. The supposed contradictions in Scripture have intellectual explanations. Oh, how my heart breaks for those who weren’t taught to patiently and faithfully look for these things! But Scripture, and salvation, does not require us to have everything perfectly figured out on an intellectual level for it to be true, even while what we need to know is clear. Science, likewise, does not require this, but at the end of the day, when you nail it down to the most unexplainable level, which is your faith claim? Can’t be both. It is not a good sign, I don’t think, when as Christians we continue to try to intellectually explain the unexplainable (i.e. miracles, the virgin birth, etc.) – it shows where our faith is (in human understanding). It shows we are dependent on human explanation.

AN ERRANT BIBLE WON’T PREACH

Inerrancy is important because the Bible is important, because we don’t have hope outside it. To be blunt, an errant Bible won’t preach. Sorry. Intellectual explanations for genre comparisons and scientific findings that expose Biblical contradictions and all that don’t stir the affections, as Edwards would say. Subjective imagination is not going to top objective spoken truth revealing the desire of our hearts (Jesus). Those that say that it is our duty as the church to embrace scientific findings, even if they cause us to rethink traditionally held and theologically crucial doctrines of Scripture - because young, scientific-minded skeptics are walking away from the faith - completely miss the point in my opinion. Those that deny the Savior out of intellectual and moral pride, and use alleged contradictions between science and the Bible as an excuse for their rebellion, do not need our compromise of the infallibility of the Bible. They need our defense of it, and our love to them that will, through Scripture and the Holy Spirit, reveal to them the glory of Jesus, and help them embrace and celebrate science with a Biblical worldview that also embraces and celebrates the non-scientific truth in Scripture.

Science can and should be embraced by Christians, but it isn't going to stir the affections the same way. I think this is because science reveals God, but only Scripture reveals Jesus. So even Christians who happen to be scientists should not confuse the fact that their faith should preach more from their life than their vocation or hobby. Scientists have no more reason to question the inerrancy of Scripture based on findings in their field than do business professionals who are confronted with situations where profit seems to render moral commands in Scripture antiquated.

An inerrant Bible just makes more sense because of its profound truth and compelling narrative. The story of Jonah in the belly of a fish could have only been a metaphorical or poetic story to show God’s compassion for his people and his desire to use us in the spread of the gospel to those people, but if it didn’t actually happen the power of the story falls a little short. It’s not as good. It’s actually pretty silly. Surely God could have inspired a better story than that. Unless it’s true! Like when you watch a movie that is based on a true story there is something additionally powerful that comes through in the message that would have been less lasting had it been only metaphor or myth. I would rather my confidence be in the authority and clarity and actual truth of Scripture, which is inspired by God, than in intellectual consensus of man’s wisdom or creativity interpreting myth, which, if inspired at any level, is not so in the same way. The latter will perish, and just doesn’t captivate me towards the Savior.

The more I read about the “incarnational analogy” about Scripture from BioLogos – that it is both divinely inspired and humanly written, just as Jesus was both fully God and fully man in his incarnation, and so is inherently fallible – the less I understand the comparison, and the more I wonder why they are so quick to remind us of the human element of Scripture, as if that has been ignored or under emphasized in traditional understandings of inerrancy. In no way does this analogy help me understand why inerrancy cannot coexist with human imperfection, just as no verse or passage or underlying idea in Scripture gives me any reason not to fully embrace that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are completely compatible. Jesus’ humanness did not make him any less God (or even a sinner). How can we dare set one against the other? Jesus was human yet did not sin. The Bible was penned by humans yet is inerrant.

Additionally, the departure from an inerrant view of Scripture inevitably is going to lead to a less robust and grounded faith. Paul warns Timothy of those who have swerved away into vain discussion, made shipwreck of their faith, departed from the faith, wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. What keeps us from this if our view of Scripture is that it is with error? That question is not rhetorical. I really want to know.

WHAT IF?

With all that said, what if the Bible is not inerrant? What if there are some errors that don’t affect the essentials of saving faith? What’s the big deal?

Perhaps nothing. I’m ok with this possibility – IF - the ultimate authority of Scripture can still be intelligible and defended. Some say it can, but it shouldn’t have to be considered authoritative over God’s creation or human experience. I don't think that's going to work. The authority of Scripture, even if errant, will never hold if we don’t elevate it over the authority of God’s revelation in creation and experience. And God’s revelation in creation is actually the authority of academic consensus, because it’s all based on what humans have figured out and think about what God has revealed. Some of it accurate, some of it error. You might say this is the same with the Bible, but now we are comparing the clarity of Scripture with the clarity of science, and considering them equal to me is an abomination. Please consider this comparison carefully. God has not spoken revelation in creation (except in Scripture), whereas in the Bible, “Thus says the Lord.” Science does not contain the truth that leads to life; it cannot die for your sins.

Human experience is even more precarious. There is no way you can get anything objective from experience, and therefore, you can never know for sure if what has been revealed to you about God is true. Might be. But there is no way to know without the testimony of Scripture.

I would challenge one to meditate on Scripture and afterwards try to articulate the whole counsel of God as found in the entirety of Scripture, and with a straight face continue to say that the Bible isn’t an ultimate authority. If it’s not, I would be as bold as to echo Paul as he referenced the truth of the Resurrection – we are most to be pitied. If the clear revelation in Scripture of Jesus Christ crucified and risen, leading to eternal saving faith, is only equal in authority to the revelation of scientific discovery, or human experience, which mainly offers only intellectual understanding, or in some cases, maybe temporal care (as in medicine), than it seems to me, like Esau, we are settling for a bowl of porridge when we could have a lasting feast. We are elevating the authority of our collaborate minds to the same level as the authority of God’s actual words, and even holding the authority of God’s words captive to our own thoughts about what they say. We are more confident that what we figure out about the world, and even about Scripture, is a more definite and trusted authority than (or at least as definite and trusted as) what God says about it Himself. Oh, God forgive us!

MY PRAYER

Christensen in C.S Lewis on Scripture, says, “When eternal realities are transposed into our finite realm, something is lost in translation. A divine concession is made. There is a deficiency of substance when Eternal Truth takes on finite form. The particulars we see and affirm as true are only shadows of the truly Real.”

And elsewhere, “The literary interpretation of Scripture, like myth, is somewhat subjective. Its value depends on the one who receives God’s Word from its pages. Like all great literature, the Bible has several levels of meaning and can meet the individual where he is. To understand Scripture, we should look beyond the language to what is represented, thereby gaining intuitive insight into the nature of reality.”

Oh, that is not my understanding or experience! After reading Christensen, I am starting to realize that maybe there are a lot of people – Christians – who are not seeing, comprehending, or experiencing the eternal God of the Universe through literal and propositional truth found in the narrative of Scripture. Not because they can’t, as Lewis and Christensen would argue, but because they just aren’t. May it never be!

This is my prayer: “Lord, I don’t want a bridge to eternal realities, dependent on my imagination or intuition, or human academic consensus, and I don’t think I need one. I want the real thing. By your power and grace you have not made a divine concession in revealing yourself to us. A mythical manifestation of you that is dependent on an imagination I don’t think I could muster, is not the extent of our experience of your revelation. A real living word – an authentic experience and understanding of objective truth and reality, revealing a real human Person who is God – is revealed to us in finite form by the grace of God. Words! Human language! You desire to know me, and for me to know you, and I know that the incarnation of the Word of God in Scripture through the Holy Spirit reveals the eternal God to me, not exhaustively, but truly and sufficiently. And I receive greater joy and you receive greater glory than if the Bible were not verbally inspired, inerrant, and completely trustworthy and authoritative. Oh, how sad and cruel if subjective imaginative intuitive perception, or fallen human academic efforts, were necessary to experience your glory. Thank you Jesus!”

J.I. Packer said, "Any degree of skepticism about the portrait of Christ, the promises of God, the principles of godliness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as biblically presented, has the effect of enslaving us to our own alternative ideas about these things, and thus we miss something of the freedom, joy, and vitality that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and merciful, and I do not suggest that those who fall short here thereby forfeit all knowledge of Christ, though I recognize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed happen. But I do maintain most emphatically that one cannot doubt the Bible without far-reaching loss, both in fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God. (Truth and Power, 55)"

As for me, I will trust and hold Him to His Word.

“If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and the good doctrine you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather, train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it hold promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” – 1 Timothy 4:6-10

Adam the First Person

I couldn’t resist it any longer. My mind was pregnant with a blog post, and birth has occurred. Here is what generated the pregnancy:

1. A recent Lifeway survey indicated that Protestant Pastors aren’t buying into evolution:

New Research on the Views of Protestant Pastors on Creation and Evolution

Praise God! Right?

2. Well, not according to everyone. Some think this is a very bad trend for the church. I decided to engage some of the folks who were concerned. Our interaction can be seen in the comments on this blog post:

Pastors Unconvinced…Now What?

3. A man named Peter Enns is very vocal (books and articles) about his concerns and very aggressive in his efforts at “re-interpreting” Genesis and other key Scriptures to account for what he sees as unmistakable evidence for evolution. This is not a new effort. Although, of late, it seems to be very popular. The flurry of activity that arises when one conservative voices his defense of an historical Adam is very telling. Just ask Kevin DeYoung. I personally find it interesting that those with a liberal interpretation of the Old Testament (liberal, as in, different from apostolic and church tradition), who accuse a conservative interpretation for its fundamentalism and unnecessary "dying on the hill" of their chosen doctrines, seem to be themselves dying on the hill of a non-historic Adam. I mean they are fiery about it. The word "brainwashed" is even thrown out about those who don't agree with them. Whoa, right? Just as a word of advice: anyone who says it is "crazy" to believe in a literal Adam, or the authority of Scripture over science, etc., etc. - is themselves absolutely crazy. It is one thing to say these things are wrong; to say they are crazy is out of touch with reality.

Anyway, Enns wrote a book called “The Evolution of Adam”, and the review of said book is generating much conversation that I have continued to participate in. He, actually, before this, wrote a book called “Inspiration and Incarnation” that sets the stage for the re-interpretation of Scripture that, as a Biblical scholar, not a scientist, he sees as the only way forward, based not only on scientific evidence, but on evidence of other ancient near-eastern literature.

For the record, I have not read either book. Sorry if that takes away the credibility of my comments. I hope it doesn't. It is what it is. One only has so much time. In general, raising an issue that challenges Christian orthodoxy and then requiring someone to read that full challenge in order to make a comment is not kosher. That's like saying I have a new revelation about how God meant for us to understand eating pork as necessary for salvation, and you have to read my whole argument before you can publicly disagree. And by the way, it is a million pages. Get to it. The Bible is all that's sufficient for the Christian, so if something is said about the Bible, I do not consider it an obligation to read the extent of what has been said, as if it is required knowledge to interpret Scripture accurately. Of course, there is value in understanding the full intention of the content that has been said before responding to the person responsible for it, to prevent misunderstanding, and that is what I have attempted to do. If nothing else, if my credibility has been threatened, consider only that I am responding to Peter Enns article in Huffington Post, as well as his blog summaries of his recent book.

One of his basic premises is that just as Jesus in his incarnation was fully divine and fully man, we have to remember that the "incarnation" of Scripture, as it were, is through God's inspiration and man's words. This is true, of course. But neither incarnation was 50/50. The mystery is that they both are 100/100 - 100% God and 100% man. And when you compare God and man, God is more authoritative. Let's just be serious. He is God. We are not. So we should not all of a sudden over-prioritize the humanity of Scripture and under-prioritize the divine inspiration of it, especially if it confuses God's absolute truth that he has revealed to us. It will always be 100% inspired, even as its 100% written by humans. Enns would say his incarnational analogy for Scripture does not under-prioritize God's inspiration. Maybe not. You can be the judge if you want to read his book. I am currently reading a response to it and other challenges to inerrancy in G.K. Beale's "The Errosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism". You can see further blog conversations that I participated in here (there are lots of comments!):

Testing Scripture on Creation and Fall
Adam in Genesis and Paul
Once More, With Feeling

More are being written all the time, and needless to say, I can’t keep up, so I am turning to the forum of my own blog (finally!). The main premises I am responding to with this blog post are:

1. Evolutionary science is settled (old earth, death before man, Adam as metaphor only, man as result of evolutionary processes, etc.).

2. Evangelical Christians need to get on board with evolutionary science (and ancient near-Eastern literary “evidence” for a different, mythical interpretation of much of the Old Testament) because many are “abandoning the faith” based on our unwillingness to concede what is presumably conclusive scientific (and literary) evidence.

3. To do this, Evangelical Christians need to re-think Genesis and other passages that, presumably, new research on ancient literature genres indicate were never intended to communicate literal scientific and historical truth, but only "myth" (loosely defined).

DON’T FOLD UP YOUR TENT

As a fellow commenter on the blog I have been participating on said, “Simply repeating over and over again, ‘the science is settled’ doesn’t make the objections to the naturalistic consensus go away. Those who find the naturalistic explanations unconvincing are not folding up their tent because Pete Enns gets press at HuffPo, or because a few scholars suggest we should all bow to the pronouncements of the ‘recognized’ experts in a particular field, nor should they. The debate will continue…”

A rebuttal to this comment claimed that there are indeed certain scientific conclusions that are “settled”. I do not believe that the most important scientific conclusions surrounding evolution are settled. If you are a Christian, and have never looked into these issues, this is important for you to know. There are certainly some scientific conclusions that are settled, but mostly they don't have anything to do with evolution, and are not specifically referenced in the Bible anyway. An example is the scientific conclusion that the earth is round. The earth is not flat, but correctly interpreted, nothing in Scripture says it is, and no orthodox theologian would even debate this. Another example would be the ancient thought that the sun revolved around the earth. We know now it is the other way around. Those who would use the flat earth or the earth's orbit as examples of why it is beneficial to sometimes reconsider traditional interpretations of Scripture in light of scientific evidence are buying time and insulting your intelligence. Don’t fall for it! Those "corrections" of ancient thought do not contradict anything explicit in Scripture.

The scientific consensus on the age of the earth based on radioactive dating methods seems to be that the earth is much older than 6000-10,000 years, as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 would seem to indicate at first glance. But I would not call this settled scientifically or theologically. Scientifically, the complexity of some of these dating methods is so technical that no one without several degrees could even hope to understand it all. The science might never translate to intelligible conclusions for the average person, which makes it hard to take seriously in my opinion.

Theologically, there definitely are other explanations of Genesis 1 to allow an old earth to be perfectly compatible with Scripture (day-age theory, creation with the appearance of age, flood geology, etc.). But you can believe the earth is old based on Scripture, not science, and be just fine. The two pastors who have had the most impact on my theology allow for this (John Piper and Tim Keller). That is a better road than believing the earth is old only based on science, considering the implications of that belief. By that I mean if you consider the earth is old based on science, you likely believe this because of evolutionary processes that also contribute to the evolution of man. This is an implication that has not been settled. If you interpret Genesis 1 as not being 7 literal 24 hour days, that is a rational interpretation, and you can easily celebrate scientific studies of the dating of fossils and what not within that Biblical lens. However, if you look to science first to determine the age of the earth, you are likely also going to look to science first to determine things that can not be accepted within a Biblical lens; and shouldn't be - there is nothing settled about the fact that Adam was not real or evolved from another species (don't let anyone tell you there is). So the key is to look to the special revelation of Scripture first, and then the general revelation of science within that lens. God's Word vs. human discovery. Should be an easy choice of where to start.

Enns says that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is not about “human origins”. He goes on to say, “Israel's story was written to say something about their place in the world and the God they worshiped. To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic. And to read the story of Adam and Eve as if it were set up to show such a thing is simply wrongheaded.”

Well, I hold that "absurd logic". I am "wrongheaded", it would seem. I, am many others.

It is not a stretch to me that the Israelites would be unique in certain things compared to other ancient peoples. Why, that was their entire purpose. Nor do I consider it a stretch, or the least bit absurd, to believe that the God who created (and sustains!) the universe (everything that exists!) was able to inspire “quasi-scientific”, historical events about Adam and Eve to the normally-unscientific Israelites, namely Moses. Nor do I think it strange that what the world considers absurd might actually be completely true. Enns continues,

“Reading the biblical story against its ancient backdrop is hardly a news flash, and most evangelical biblical scholars easily concede the point. But for some reason this piece of information has not filtered down to where it is needed most: into the mainstream evangelical consciousness. Once it does, evangelicals will see for themselves that dragging the Adam and Eve story into the evolution discussion is as misguided as using the stories of Israel's monarchy to rank the Republican presidential nominees.”

I will tell you the reason that what Enns is saying has not filtered down: it is either already there, because its obvious (flat earth), or its bologna. Reading the Biblical story in an ancient backdrop, as he acknowledges that Biblical scholars do, does not assume that Adam and Eve cannot be real. He is making confusing arguments and ridiculous metaphors to try to explain a point he will never be able to conclusively make. The likes of Enns have more than “mainstream evangelical consciousness” to convince, although even that is not likely to ever happen. There are more than just naïve, ignorant Evangelicals holding the hill of a literal Adam. In many cases he is only talking to the scientists, who happen to be Christians, who already agree with him. Those Christians, who happen to be scientists (there is a difference!), as well as the rest of us, who are not scientists, are not convinced by his approach or his logic. I would advise more respect and understanding of the pulse in the Church to Enns if this conversation is ever going to go anywhere. More helpful is Tim Keller’s pastoral approach to those who are struggling with how to reconcile faith and science. A key point in Keller’s treatment of this issue is that Adam and Eve need to remain real if our integration of science and faith is ever going to remain “Christian” faith, and not something else. His article is here:

Creation, Evolution, and the Christian Layperson

Additionally, the “discovery” that there was death before man is NOT settled, and theologically it is one of the things that is causing a "re-thinking" of Genesis and other passages. There are many explanations to the existence and age of fossils we have found, none of them conclusively proving anything about the timing compared to Adam. It needs to be repeated that this re-thinking is still a work in progress, at best. Anyone who has a problem taking these steps of faith, you would remain in good company with Evangelical Christians if you didn't. There are folks who take science seriously as a means to glorify God, within the framework of creation that He has established for it, as revealed to us in His Word, but do not elevate it beyond what it was meant to reveal.

I say “steps of faith” referring to certain individual scientific theories that many consider off limits to debate because evolution is said to be more about the “interconnectedness of many discoveries and scientific disciplines” - so you can’t just cherry pick individual ones to discount – namely, that natural selection alone can create a new species on a molecular biological level. But if this isn’t observable, scientifically (which it isn’t), forget the interconnectedness, the “discovery” that man evolved from anything is far from settled. And if this isn’t settled, the account of a historical Adam in Genesis still holds up very well, and there is absolutely no reason to “re-think” it. None. Consider this helpful description I received from a friend in the field of molecular biology:

"So you have a patient that needs antibiotic treatment for a strep throat. You give him antibiotics which he takes. Since humans have more bacteria in the gut than cells in the body, there is a possibility that just one or two bacteria of the many trillions will have a positive mutation that confers resistance to the drug. The one DNA mutation changed the amino acid coded for, and the protein shape is changed ever so slightly, so that it still does its function, but the drug cannot bind like it did before. Since the bacterium is invisible to the drug, but all the other bacteria aren’t, the resistant bacterium takes over because of the available resources. Next thing you know, you have an even worse infection that you must use another antibiotic to kill.

"That is natural selection. Why did I explain all that? I did it to show that something like that must happen millions and millions of times over to create the changes necessary to make a new series of traits, let alone a whole new species. That bacteria has so much stacked against it to just have one of those beneficial mutations. Think about needing millions of them. Then think about needing a selection mechanism for each trait, and not only that, but that the beneficially mutated organism will experience selection in its life time. You likely have methicillin resistant bacteria in your gut now, but it doesn’t matter because they will never get selected for (unless you take methicillin). On top of that, you would need gene duplications, translocations, reversions, massive genetic rearrangement, etc. that were evidently necessary to create the complicated genomes we have now. If all that wasn’t enough, this all seems unlikely even in bacteria which has a generation time of 20 minutes. Consider how many years and generations it would take when you have to select from an organism with an 80 year generation time with all the set backs I listed above! The probability that this can occur is astronomically low. And from a scientific and molecular biology standpoint, it is simply not plausible.

"My point is: Natural selection exists. It can shape some environments. It can change animals slightly within their kind by a few genes and to a certain extent. But there is no specific evidence, and it his extremely unlikely that new species can be created through natural selection alone. Really, it’s impossible."

FAITH SHIPWRECK

To address the second premise, let’s be clear about what it means to “abandon the faith”. I say this very conscious of the fact that many have had those close to them take this road. Seriously, I pause in humble desperation to God that this would not be the case, and that any who have left would come back!

But to walk away from the faith doesn’t ultimately mean that your intellectual understandings of science and Scripture don’t match up anymore. That could contribute, but these people who are “abandoning the faith” because the Christian church isn’t embracing evolution, is anyone talking to them about Jesus? About the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, or the new earth that we were created for, that no scientific discovery can even begin to foretell? Are they surrounded by a community of the saints, God’s bride? What about godliness and righteousness in light of their personal sin problem? Ravi Zacharias said it well when he said that no one ultimately rejects the faith because of an intellectual stumbling block; they reject the faith because of a moral reluctance to submit to the Lordship of Christ. Are we proclaiming and demonstrating the Gospel to them so that the Holy Spirit can work through our lives in their hearts?

Can we at least confirm a moral reluctance (pride, etc.) isn’t what’s going on in these examples, before we re-interpret Scripture so much that we aren’t sure what we have left? Because if this is going on at any level with those who are walking away from the faith, the authority of Scripture is going to be very important as they return (which they can!). It is the Word of God. The Word of God! It pierces to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Acknowledging science is not more important than submitting to the authority of Scripture, ESPECIALLY for those who would consider abandoning the faith. Those who don’t abandon the faith, but embrace evolution at the cost of discounting the authority of Scripture (which I know is not everyone who embraces evolution, but clearly many fall into this category), are they not in worse shape of abandoning the faith later for other non-science, non-intellectual related reasons?

I want to be the rare Evangelical Christian who rejects evolution, but does so in a way that is respectful and attentive to the science, the people, and the discoveries. I really hope I am coming through that way. I desire very much to avoid being guilty of, as Enns says, “all sorts of strained, idiosyncratic or obscurantist tactics: massaging or distorting the data, manipulating the legal system, scaring their constituencies and strong-arming those of their own camp who raise questions.” This does not have to be the approach of a competent Evangelical Christian who rejects evolution.

I don’t hate science. I’m not mad at anybody. I am not naïve, and I know many holding to the premises above aren’t either. My goal is to be very clear, yet very sensitive, about what is at stake here so that we all can make other conversations about the faith easier to get to, aside from whatever scientific aptitude or perspectives a person may have. The Word of God is the link from this life to the life to come. It reveals the mediator who gets us there, in right standing with the Father. Science can’t do this. Ancient Near-Eastern Literature can't do this. It can’t die for our sins and can’t expose us to the wonders of eternal life and everyday grace in Jesus Christ. Let’s still celebrate science! Let’s just be very careful as we “re-think” the most important of revelations: the Word of God. It has to be the higher authority. Has to be.

SO WHAT ABOUT ADAM?

Why is an historical Adam and Eve necessary? What can’t Genesis 1-3 be parable-style storytelling, which many go to great detail to interpret it as, and which seems to match with other similar ancient literature? What essential doctrines of the faith would we really lose? Well, I will again lead you to Tim Keller’s approach to this issue, as he separates Genesis 1 from Genesis 2-3 in a way that is very helpful to sort through the complexity that this discussion can create.

"We may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way. In Exodus 14-15 (the Red Sea crossing) and Judges 4-5 (Israel’s defeat of Syria under Sisera) there is an historical account joined to a more poetical ‘song’ that proclaims the meaning of the event. Something like that may be what the author of Genesis has in mind here.

"What, then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam, intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of ‘exalted prose narrative’ or poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history. This doesn’t mean that Genesis (or any text of the Bible) is history in the modern, positivistic sense. Ancient writers who were telling about historical events felt free to dischronologize and compress time frames – to omit enormous amounts of information that modern historians would consider essential to give ‘the complete picture.’ However, ancient writers of history still believed that the events they were describing actually happened.

"The evidence is that Near Eastern ‘myths’ did not evolve over time into historical accounts, but rather historical events tended to evolve over time into more mythological stories. Kitchen’s argument is that, if you read Genesis 2-11 in light of how ancient Near Eastern literature worked, you would conclude, if anything, that Genesis 2-11 were ‘high’ accounts, with much compression and figurative language, of events that actually happened. In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.

"If you hold to the view that Adam and Eve were not literal, and you realize the author of Genesis was probably trying to teach us that Adam and Eve were real people who sinned, and that Paul certainly was, then you have to face the implications for how you read Scripture. You may say, "Well, the Biblical authors were ‘men of their time’ and were wrong about something they were trying to teach readers.” The obvious question is, “how will we know which parts of the Bible to trust and which not?”

"I am not arguing something so crude as “if you don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible!” I contended above that we cannot take every text in the Bible literally. But the key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t believe Genesis 1 can be taken literally because I don’t think the author expected us to. But Paul is different. He most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a Biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical authority. As I said above, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople.

"If you don’t believe in the fall of humanity as a single historical event, what is your alternative? You may posit that some human beings began to slowly turn away from God, all exercising their free wills. But then how did sin spread? Was it only by bad example? That has never been the classic teaching of the Christian doctrine of original sin. We do not learn sin from others; we inherit a sin nature. Alan Jacobs’ great book on Original Sin: A Cultural History says that anyone who holds to the classic Augustinian view of original sin must believe that we are ‘hard-wired’ for sin; we didn’t just learn sin from bad examples. The doctrine also teaches that it was not originally in our nature to sin, but that we have fallen from primal innocence. Another problem arises if you deny the historicity of the fall. If some human beings began to turn away from God, why couldn’t some human beings resist so that some groupings would be less sinful than others? Alan Jacobs in his book on original sin insists that the equal sinfulness of the entire human race is foundational to the traditional view."

Further, Mark Driscoll explains the importance of a historical Adam and Even this way:

“When we look at Scripture itself, it’s clear there are numerous biblical reasons why Christians should affirm that Adam was both the first person and the first person—and there is no textual evidence to support a denial of this truth. Rather, to deny this historical teaching of the church undermines the clear teaching of the Bible and fails to make sense of its storyline, as without a historical Adam and Eve, there is no fall and no need for redemption and no need for Jesus. The very basis of Christianity is effectively undermined.

“So, what are we to do in the face of seemingly contradictory truth between science and Scripture? We have two choices: exchange the truths of Scripture for the truths of science and wash our hands clean (Paul is clear in Romans 1:18 and 1:22–23 that many people choose just this option), or we take the truths of science and place them within the context of the truths of Scripture as the highest authority.

“Just as there are many ways to interpret the chronological and methodological ways in which God created and still be in the realm of Christian orthodoxy by affirming the intended truth of those Scriptures—that God created—there are also many ways to internalize the truths of the historicity of Adam and Eve as taught in Scriptures. What one cannot do, however, is deny the existence of Adam and Eve and remain faithful to the Scriptures and their account.

“As C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary writes, ‘The purpose of the stories [in Genesis] is to lay the foundation for a worldview, without being taken in a “literalistic” fashion. We should nevertheless see the story as having what we might call a “historic core”’, namely that Adam and Eve were real persons through whom came the fall and sin and our need for salvation, which can only come through Jesus, his death and resurrection. Any other story or worldview is in contradiction to Scripture and thus to be rejected.”

DIFFERENT DOCTRINE

The very effort of “rethinking” Biblical Christianity, or Biblical interpretation, should raise serious red flags for discerning Christians. It is the main reason why Peter Enns, for example, raises a red flag to me. The subtitle of his blog is "rethinking Biblical Christianity". That is bold. It doesn’t matter how far science, or liberal Biblical scholarship, may take us, it can never take us to a reinvention of orthodox faith. There can't be a new orthodox. So whatever convincing evidence you may sometime run across, remember that it is either compatible with Scripture and the faith as is, and you can celebrate it to the glory of God, or it is on its way to heresy, if not already there. We have come to the point where we have to say that the teachings of fellow Evangelical Christians are on the way to heresy. That should not be surprising, but should seriously humble us. I know it has humbled me.

1 Timothy 1:3-4 --- As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

What is a “different doctrine”? My Pastor Mark Vroegop explains, “The word means it is a departure or a deviation from the apostolic instruction that the church had been taught. Now it is important to note here that not everything 'new' is bad, but part of the appeal of this false teaching was its improvement on what Paul had taught. Most false teachers do not present their teaching as radically different but merely as an improvement. However, Paul saw this as preaching a different gospel (Gal 1:6) or a different Jesus (2 Cor 11:4).”

Paul considered Adam real. Maybe, some would say, he did this based on the information and cultural assumptions of his day, namely, that Genesis and the creation account were mythological interpretations of the true doctrines of God. So he thought they were history, but they were really myth, and when you go back and look at them, this is obvious to us in a way that was not obvious (or relevant) to Paul (or Luke). So Paul was mistaken at some level that is ultimately insignificant to the centrals truths communicated, and we are able to improve upon his teaching clarifying the mythology in it, because of modern evidence. This is not a good idea. Don’t embrace a different doctrine. In fact, if you are a Christian, you should charge certain persons not to teach anything of the sort. A non-literal Adam is a different doctrine. That's the line, like it or not.

The temptation to embrace this different doctrine (because of cultural and scientific pressures) is going to be very difficult to resist, and the lack of doing so is going to be very, very important. As Keller says, “I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging.” The same would apply to the faithful Christian sitting in the pew and interacting on the street, so to speak, with those who are confused or hostile to the message of the Christian faith. My prayer is that the indwelling Spirit of God, the imparted grace of God, the interceding Son of God, and the inspired Word of God would make us ready for the task of guarding the good deposit of Scripture that has been entrusted to us and makes us wise for salvation - not just our own!

What Prevents Me From Being Baptized?

This post, is, needless to say, a long time coming. For lots of reasons. First, let me tell you how gracious the God of the Universe is in Jesus Christ. May I? He is unbelievable. While I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me. He died!


I have always been drawn to the passage in Acts 8 about the Ethiopian eunuch who was ignorantly reading the prophet Isaiah, and Philip came along by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and explained to him about Jesus, and about the gospel, and the eunuch believed. He then came across water, and asked the question, "What prevents me from being baptized?" It was, and is, a good question. I read the Bible ignorantly for 21 years. In college, in the context of a fraternity house, I was explained the gospel and about the Person of Jesus Christ. I believed, and have since that time always read the story in Acts 8 with hesitation but deep conviction. I have tried to answer the eunuch's question for me since the time I first believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and was saved. Yet, ultimately, I have been unable.


I grew up in the Episcopal Church, was baptized as an infant, and confirmed as a teenager, per the traditional process of many Christians over the years for as long as the church has existed. So one seemingly good answer for me to the eunuch's question would be the personal and theological one surrounding infant baptism. I have already been baptized. What, if anything, would being baptized again possibly accomplish? Other than perhaps, confusion and disrespect not only to my parents, who made the decision for me, under the authority of God and a church, to count me as part of the New Covenant family through the sign of baptism, but also to those outside my family, or even outside the church, who know I have already been baptized and even been a Christian outspokenly for a number of years. What prevents me from being baptized? Well, the fact that I already have been, thanks to my loving parents, and the grace of God, who saved me, outside any merit or action of my own.


Then there is the theological predicament, and the precedent of much of church history. The issue of infant baptism is passionately defended and practiced to this day, and those that uphold its Biblical importance are not naive or ignorant. If I myself defended my own infant baptism as sufficient for my obedience even after my adult salvation, I would certainly be in good company. Even now, I have quite a lot of trouble thinking that R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller, Sinclair Ferguson, Ligon Duncan, among others, could misinterpret Scripture in this way, not to mention those who have come and gone earlier in church history that were worthy heralds of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What prevents me from being baptized? A pretty legitimate, frequently practiced, and widely held theological argument that because I already have been, as I should have been, doing so again is unnecessary.


Still, the question has not been adequately answered. I know that even to defend infant baptism, and look to my own as sufficient, does not clear up the issue of salvation, and identification with Christ and His church. The argument in support of infant baptism does not even claim that the act itself, or the physical water, is the means to saving you, reconciling you to God, accomplishing your justification, or covering you in the sacrificial blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. It has never been practiced for that reason. Neither then, is baptism that is delayed until a conscious decision for Christ is made, and repentance is shown, practiced or believed for this reason. So why is baptism so important, and why is it mentioned so much in the New Testament? Is this an either / or issue? For those who have been baptized as infants, and continue to do the same for their children, why can't that be sufficient for them? And for those who believe that baptism is meant only for those who consciously accept Christ in faith accompanied by repentance, why can't that be sufficient for them? To each his own. Right? Either way, God is accomplishing salvation in people outside the act itself. That is what is the most important. So I'm good to go.


Unless, one way more clearly demonstrates authentic faith, not just for the individual, but also for the church. In other words, if one way more clearly identifies you with the Savior, and more clearly identifies you as part of His body, and the other way, perhaps, confuses or blurs not only your ultimate association with Christ's body of believers, but also confuses your association (or union) with Him, then surely the former way should be preferred.


John MacArthur explains that at the end of the day, a professing Christian really has only a few possible answers to the Ethiopian eunuch's question. None of them are good. One is ignorance - either having not been taught or wrongly taught. Another is pride - not willing to be obedient to what is clearly a Biblical mandate. A third is indifference - not considering obedience a priority. Fourth is deviance - unwillingness to obey. And finally, a professing Christian may resist baptism because they are not truly converted and therefore have no desire to publicly demonstrate the significance of baptism on behalf of the honor of Christ.


God has brought me to a place where I believe He greatly desires to be glorified through what He has done and is doing in my life. Specifically, now, in the context of a local church body of believers in Indianapolis - College Park. It is at this church where I will be getting married in March. Married! What an answered prayer and what a great joy! It is at this church where I am completing, with my future wife, the process of membership, which includes submission to the authority of the leadership, who are under the authority of Scripture, and identification with the congregation of believers here, among whom I am anxious to selflessly serve based on the Spirit's leading. And it is at this church where I am to be baptized.


And I do so humbled, and excited, with no good reason or answer to the Ethiopian eunuch's question, but with one very profound answer to another question: What drives me to be baptized? And the answer is this: a deep desire to publicly confess and visibly demonstrate, in front of my local church, the reality that I have been bought by the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross on my behalf. And I have died to sin. Died! It has no dominion over me, even as its presence remains in this life. And I have been raised to new life in Christ. I'm alive! United in Christ, in His life, in His death, and in His resurrection, only by His grace, and all for His glory. This is not an abstract truth that is only objectively true for all believers. It is real, and it is also subjectively true for me. That God has provided a way to publicly demonstrate this supernatural and glorious reality is beyond gracious. It is wonderful. And I do it willingly.

The Book of Acts in 26 Months

In June 2009, a small group of people and I embarked on what was promised to be not your average weekly bible study. We began with Acts Chapter 1, Verse 1.

Tonight, August 4, 2011, we conclude Acts Chapter 28, Verse 31. Twenty-six months in one book of the Bible. What have I learned? For one thing, this is not enough time. So much more we could have covered. I'm not joking. The Acts of the Apostles is an amazing narrative and theological example for Christians today to enjoy, be challenged and convicted by, and hold on to as we continue the very account that ended in Verse 31. I know I will never leave this book. Hope the same for you! Special thanks to everyone who was a part, and to John MacArthur, who preached diligently through this book from 1972 to 1975. The lasting application will never cease to amaze me.

Meanwhile, it appears that there are quicker ways to survey this book. Who knew.

The Whole Counsel of God

This topic has been heavy on my heart in recent weeks. Am I proclaiming the whole counsel of God? Most of it at least? Part of it only? Am I living the whole counsel of God? Are you hearing the whole counsel of God? Am I innocent of your blood? What is the whole counsel of God?

Three things have set me on this journey. The first is the natural progression of a Bible study through the Book of Acts that I help lead, and the confrontation with the text of Acts 20: "But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."

The second is the firestorm over and the very existence of the book Love Wins, by Rob Bell, which offers some surprising interpretations on the Bible's teaching on judgment and salvation. The third is my experience at The Gospel Coalition conference earlier this month in Chicago, which focused on preaching Christ and the Gospel from the Old Testament. So, in other words, the first part of my journey has involved a thorough study of the biblical exhortation to declare the whole counsel of God; the second part has involved an encounter with a very bad example of this in practice, and the third part has involved the experience of a very good example. God has brought me closer to Him in this journey, and closer, I think, to understanding what the whole counsel of God is, how to proclaim it, and how to live it.

WHAT ABOUT MY GRASS?

Why should you care? I try to always ask that question in my posts, because it is a legitimate one. What are you doing on here? How did the interwebs lead you here? Why are you reading these strange words? Why I am taking the time to write them? The Spring has sprung. It's beautiful outside. Do you see how long my grass is right now? I don't have time for counsel. Seriously, my mower doesn't have a setting high enough to conquer the field outside my window, and I'm about to reek havoc on my blade and many other things, not least of which my allergies; uncontrollable sneezing is about to commence. I don't have time to delay the inevitable. The longer I wait, the more miserable it is going to be. Are you with me? So what is the point here? The whole counsel of God? Come on. My grass looks like a jungle. I don't care about this elusive "whole counsel" of God, and I don't have time for it. Or, you might have just had, or are very soon expecting, a baby. A human being. This is not assumption, as I know many people this month or the next few months who are expecting children. This is a big deal. Obviously a bigger deal than an untrimmed lawn. But, I wonder, how does the whole counsel of God apply to your newborn? Are you going to explain it to them? Shouldn't you?

Oh, that you would care, and have time, and explain it! As usual, what I write here is not sufficient to explain such a massive topic. But I hope it plants a seed. I hope it helps your reading of the Bible. I hope it encourages your love of people. I hope it allows you to rejoice at the deepest level. I hope it secures your joy in suffering. The Bible is the special revelation of the God of the Universe in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. When you read it, this is always the point, and it always will transform your life. Confusion about these things is not God's will for us. So, let's get into it.

SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Some of you might not be aware of a pretty fundamental disagreement within the Christian Church. I want to expose you to it, but with great care, because I don't mean to confuse you or distance you from the Savior; I mean to draw you closer to Him in awe and surrender, where He is waiting for you with open arms. This disagreement centers around salvation. One extreme says that God predestines those who will come to faith in Him and does the entire work in saving us. The other extreme says that we come to salvation based on our free will decision. Many label those that believe completely in predestination as "Calvinists" (even though this description can include a much wider, and more specific, interpretation of the nature and grace of God). Many label those that believe completely in human free will as Arminians (even though, in my experience, those that lean this way are largely less informed about the difference, by their own admission). A wise man, and a friend, once explained in a Bible study I was in, a simple answer to this question when it came up. It has stuck with me like a super-glue backed post-it note on my brain: both are 100% true. Whoa. Right? God predestines us, and we are responsible for the free will decision. That some read the Bible and don't see this is quite perplexing to me. The fact that is makes no logical sense whatsoever is irrelevant to its presence in Scripture and very clear truthfulness.

Reading Acts has been very revealing about this reality of both being equally and completely true at the same time. "Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself." (Acts 2:37-41)

"When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

"A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshipper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14)

Charles Spurgeon, no slouch when it comes to Bible teaching, offers the balance of these two truths as a central part of what it means to preach the whole counsel of God. In other words, if you favor one at the expense of the other, you are falling short of God's complete truth (whole counsel), and leading people astray. God predestines us, and we are completely responsible. Sorry if that is confusing. I didn't make this stuff up. Its just true. Listen to Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers (read his entire address here):

"To proceed then:—I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared—unless election be boldly and nakedly taught as being one of the truths revealed of God. It is the minister's duty, beginning from this fountain head, to trace all the other streams; dwelling on effectual calling, maintaining justification by faith, insisting upon the certain perseverance of the believer, and delighting to proclaim that gracious covenant in which all these things are contained, and which is sure to all the chosen, blood-bought seed... We are told that the times have changed: that we are to modify these old (so-called) Calvinistic doctrines, and bring them down to the tone of the times; that, in fact, they need dilution, that men have become so intelligent that we must pare off the angles of our religion, and make the square into a circle by rounding off the most prominent edges. Any man who doth this, so far as my judgment goes, does not declare the whole counsel of God.

"But beloved, a man might preach all these doctrines to the full, and yet not declare the whole counsel of God. For here comes the labour and the battle; here it is that he who is faithful in these modern days will have to bare the full brunt of war. It is not enough to preach doctrine; we must preach duty, we must faithfully and firmly insist upon practice. So long as you will preach nothing but bare doctrine, there is a certain class of men of perverted intellect who will admire you, but once begin to preach responsibility—say outright, once for all, that if the sinner perish it is his own fault, that if any man sinks to hell, his damnation will lie at his own door, and at once there is a cry of 'Inconsistency! How can these two things stand together?' Even good Christian men are found who cannot endure the whole truth, and who will oppose the servant of the Lord who will not be content with a fragment, but will honestly present the whole gospel of Christ. This is one of the troubles that the faithful minister has to endure. But he is not faithful to God—I say it solemnly, I do not believe that any man is even faithful to his own conscience, who can preach simply the doctrine of responsibility. I do assuredly believe that every man who sinks into hell shall have himself alone to curse for it. It shall be said of them as they pass the fiery portal: 'Ye would not.'...

"I do not see that the whole counsel of God is declared, unless those two apparently contradictory points are brought out and plainly taught... Espouse but one phase of the truth, and you shall be cried up to the very heavens. Become such a Calvinist that you shut your eyes to one half the Bible, and cannot see the responsibility of the sinner, and men will clap their hands, and cry Hallelujah! and on the backs of many you shall be hoisted to a throne, and become a very prince in their Israel. On the other hand, begin to preach mere morality, practice without doctrine, and you shall be elevated on other men's shoulders; you shall, if I may use such a figure, ride upon these asses into Jerusalem; and you shall hear them cry, Hosanna! and see them wave their palm branches before you.

"But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, 'The man is too high,' the other saying, 'No, he is too low;' the one will say, 'He's a rank Arminian,' the other, 'He's a vile hyper- Calvinist.' Now, a man does not like to stand between two fires. There is an inclination to please one or other of the two parties, and so, if not to increase one's adherents, at least to get a more ferociously attached people... Therefore, it was no mean testimony that the apostle asked for himself, that he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God.

"But, then, let me remark further, while there is this temptation not to declare all the counsel of God, the true minister of Christ feels impelled to preach the whole truth, because it and it alone can meet the wants of man. What evils has this world seen through a distorted, mangled, man-moulded gospel. What mischiefs have been done to the souls of men by men who have preached only one part and not all the counsel of God. My heart bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained the sway. I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they listen. I have known convictions stifled and desires quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! may the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error."

CAN WE MESS IT UP?

Clearly, Spurgeon's point was that you can mess it up, and fail to declare the whole counsel of God, if you talk about and model God's predestination only, or man's responsibility only. But predestination and responsibility need more explanation themselves to get at what is included in the whole counsel of God, and to keep us from messing it up.

There are many ways to get at this. John Piper, for his part, describes certain truths in Scripture that must be included to declare the whole counsel of God. He says that people need to understand something about God - his holiness, his role as Creator; something about Man - created in God's image; something about Sin - our falling short of the glory of God; something about Christ - His virgin birth, sinless life, deity, example; something about the Cross - Christ's death in our place for our sins, his resurrection to give us hope and secure our future; something about the Holy Spirit - its supernatural transformation of our heart, and its presence in our lives as a deposit of eternal life; and something about Faith - our trusting in Christ and repentance as a necessary step for this salvation.

That is a lot. And, Piper says, you can go wrong concerning these things in a hundred different places. As luck would have it, contemporary culture has offered a very relevant example of one of those places in recent months. I wish it hadn't.

My last post was about Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, specifically its denial of the existence of hell, as traditional Christianity has understood it, and its portrayal of salvation as a universal promise, with or without trust in Jesus. I have now read the book. Let me tell you, it is not very good. I say that with as much respect and love for Rob Bell as I can muster. It's horribe. I'm just sayin'. Seriously, its bad, bad, bad. I'm not kidding around. If you must read it, immediately after you do so, check out Scot McKnight's careful critique. Then, listen to, watch, or read, Mark Driscoll's bold and pastoral message on the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16. Seriously, please watch it. Then, check out John MacArthur's less gentle, but equally fair, analysis of the book and the overall theology of Rob Bell. That should give you the basics. If you still want more, go to Kevin DeYoung and his massive review. If still not satisfied (at this point you're a glutton for punishment), maybe some snippets of what I found as serious issues with the book will be helpful to you:

- He doesn't talk about individual sin, and almost never his own sin. All sin is corporate from his perspective. This is unhelpful to me, an individual sinner.

- Although he explains Bible verses, he does very little Bible exposition. In other words, he doesn't let the text speak for itself; instead he uses it to make his points, some of which are not coherent. This is unhelpful to me, as I am not a Bible scholar, yet I care about what the Bible actually says.

- He shows downright apathy towards the reality of judgment day. Of the verses he references to explain hell, none of them are the ones that mention a day of judgment. This is unhelpful to me in my preparation for judgment.

- He offers no explanation for the character of John the Baptist and his warnings. What I am to make of this rough, hairy, locust-eating man?

- He ridicules immature, ignorant, unnamed Christians as he communicates his frustration with traditional Christianity's articulation of hell. Mature believers would never talk the way he accuses. What would he say to the articulation of hell by lifelong Bible teachers who preach it with trembling, and plead with their hearers to trust in Jesus?

- His explanation of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is the worst form of moralizing. Ok, so I should pay attention to the poor people begging outside my door. That is convicting. But what am I to make of the torment, agony, and flame that the rich man faces?

- In general, he responds to an under-realized eschatology with an over-realized eschatology. God's kingdom has come to Earth, but its not fully here yet, but it kinda is. Or is it? If it is, why is there still death?

- He considers sin the rejection of the life God designed, not rejection of God himself. This is not a helpful description of my longing for a Savior or my guilty conscience, or much guidance as to how to live the life God designed.

- The only invitation he offers is to trust that we are loved, and that a new story is being told about us. I don't know many skeptics or unbelievers that would take the time to consider such a mediocre version of good news. His attempt to make the Gospel more palatable probably won't even work.

- He explains Hebrews from the perspective of the end of pagan sacrifices, instead of the fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices. This makes the Book of Hebrews even more confusing to me.

- He can't understand hell outside the assumption that it represents that God has "changed gears" in his redemptive purposes. This assumption is not necessary and inconsistent with biblical truth, and makes Ephesians 1, for example, unintelligible to me.

- He actually utters the words, "We shape our God, then He shapes us." We shape our God? What? This does not give me any assurance at all that I will shape God anywhere close to how He is actually shaped.

I have a folder on my jump drive with more than 100 articles about this book from all over the Internet. I can find very few in support of it. Like I said above, Scot McKnight, a discerning Evangelical who has been sympathetic to the Emerging Church over the years, offers what I see as the most telling effort at correction. Please let me know if you would like other resources on this topic. I think I've said more than enough, and to be honest, I'm tired. The issue is now more so about the content of the controversy rather than the nature of it, and not even really about Rob Bell anymore. As John Piper hastily but prophetically stated in reaction to the promo video, Bell has now officially distanced himself from the Evangelical community, with which he, for some reason, still identifies.

Bottom line: if you diminish a doctrine as fundamental to the Gospel as the judgment of God, and ignore the glory that is seen in Jesus taking that punishment in our place, not only are you falling short of declaring the whole counsel of God, but also you are setting the stage for gradual disintegration of just about every other truth that makes the Gospel coherent, and wonderful. Don't do that.

DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT MATTER?

Did you watch the video above yet? It is way more important than anything I am writing here. I have been watching it every day. The Bible is not about me? The Old Testament characters point to something (ahem, Someone) more significant than a moral lesson on how to overcome obstacles or treat people more nicely? Even Jonah and the whale? And Esther? And David and Goliath? And the temple? And light? And bread? And the lamb? Its all about Jesus Christ? That is illuminating, life-changing, endlessly helpful, and a great relief. The Gospel Coalition conference featured brillant proclammations of this reality from very difficult to understand Old Testament passages. Here is an inadequate synopsis of some of the highlights:

John 5: 31-47 -- Albert Mohler

Mohler opened the conference with an overview of this passage in John and the practice of studying the Scripture and finding Jesus. He went through a fast-paced explanation and interpretation of the Book of Hebrews that I could never begin to summarize. He highlighted some of the ways that the general public dismiss the Old Testament, such as 1) considering it a different book (Hebrew Scriptures vs. Christian Scriptures), 2) considering it about a different deity (Angry God the Father vs. Loving Jesus), 3) denying that it has continuity with New Testament, and 4) presenting it as a moral dilemma. He then mentioned ways that preachers handle the Old Testament, such as 1) Avoid it altogether, 2) Use it as background only, and 3) moralize. By moralize, he meant turn every passage into a moral lesson, which in some ways is a good thing to do. "The only alternative to a moralizing preacher is a sociopath - but for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Moralizing is not wrong, its not just the main point, and it is tragic to end there."

After debunking a lot of these ways of handling the Old Testament, he showed how John indicates that Moses, John the Baptist, Scripture, and the Father Himself all bare witness to the centrality of Jesus Christ; how the purpose of the law was to foster hope; and how we need the New Testament to understand the Old. It was an amazing introduction.

Exodus 14 -- Tim Keller

And then came Tim Keller. This message was a game-changer. Just incredible. Do you ever think about the crossing of the Red Sea? I mean, really think about it? Maybe you don't believe it actually happened. That's fine. But when you start to realize its foreshadowing of our deliverance from bondage into the presence and salvation of Jesus Christ, all by grace, the struggle with whether or not to believe in the literalness of it fades away. And then, amazingly, it becomes more believable.

Keller asked and answered 3 questions:

1.) Q: What do we get out of? A: Bondage with layers
2.) Q: How do we get out? A: Cross over by grace
3.) Q: Why is it possible for us to get out? A: Because of a mediator.

Bondage with layers? You don't think of yourself in bondage, do you? If you're not a Christian, you are in bondage to sin, guilt, and to the law. If you are a Christian, you're still in bondage. Did you know that? "You can take people out of slavery, but you can't take the slavery out of the people." Even though there is now no condemnation for you, Keller says, subjectively we all know deep down that we're supposed to be perfect. We always default back to works righteousness, or trying to earn favor from God. And we fall short. Beyond that, we are in bondage to our sin nature. Justification delivers us from the penalty of sin, but sanctification is a gradual process of delivering us from the power of it. Think about this: every time you sin, you make it that much harder to resist that sin going forward. Every single time. Sin is suicide. We're in bondage! Finally, Keller explained how we are in bondage to idols. Even after we trust in Christ, our "old masters" come back after us, like Pharaoh in this passage, and try to convince us that we have to serve them or die. We all know this. An idol is something, besides God, that when it gets taken from you, you want to die. It is something that tells you that you will die if you don't "serve it". And you try, but it fails you. And then you're devestated.

So, how do we get out? We cross over by grace. By grace! Towering down on either side of us is a chaotic wall of water of God's wrath, unstoppable in its force, save by the power, willingness, and grace of God. And like the Israelities, and like Paul, we cross over, in an instant, and are changed. One minute we're in the bondage, the next minute we have crossed over by grace. Some of us may have crossed over in great confidence, some of us in great fear. No matter; we are equally saved. Keller explained how when you ask someone whether they are a Christian, and they answer something like, "Well, I'm trying", that shows they don't understand Christianity at all. Not at all. We are not saved because of the level of our faith but by the object of it - Jesus Christ. "After that, every problem is a flea bite in comparison to what has already been accomplished for you. And that's how you deal with the flea bites!"

Why is it possible? Because of a mediator. Greater than Moses, who stood aligned with God, as he spoke for Him to the people, and also aligned with the people, as he shared in their guilt, as a mediator - is Jesus Christ, who is our perfect mediator, living a sinless human life, taking the punishment we deserve, and rising from the dead as fully God to give us hope and assurance of salvation. Keller explained how in the Bible, from the very beginning, water represented chaos, and the Flood in Genesis is referred to by some as "decreation". When we turn away from our Creator, we get chaos and disintegration. That is what happened during the Flood, the Exodus, and even today. The Israelites had a mediator during the Exodus, Moses, who in the power of God held back the water walls of judgment. For us today: "Jesus Christ, on the cross, was being decreated so that you and I can be recreated."

Jeremiah 23:1-8 -- Conrad Mbewe

Hear the "African Spurgeon", Conrad Mbewe: "Brethren, this is the promise of the whole Bible. If God was to simply raise human shepherds over His people, sin would always bring about their downfall. The great promise of God is that He is sending Another, with a capital 'A'. And who is this? He is referred to in this passage as a branch, a Righteous Branch.

"What is it that destroyed Israel to the point that God would send them into captivity? It was the unrighteousness in leadership that seaps through and becomes the unrighteousness of the people. Therefore, if there is to be a real restoration from a place of judgment, than the wrath of God, which is essentially the justice of God, has to be lifted off from the people that were under its chastisment. And that could only be done with the satisfaction of justice through another. And beyond that it must be that this new leadership must be in himself righteousness. Because any other position would still mean that there is a debt to be paid, and consequently, (the people) would be right back to square one. So, who is this, who provided leadership to Israel on the basis of righteousness? You don't need to search very far to realize that there is only one across the whole of history who answers to this description....

"Whoever this person is, is God. For He is described in (Isaiah 9:6) not only as Wonderful Counselor, but also as Mighty God! This child, who is to be born, who is to be given to us, is the infinite and most glorious being, that angels have worshipped from eternity to eternity! The one who through His hands has brought into being the universe as we know it! He who governs all the rolling spheres across the entire universe, including the minutest details of our lives! And He will ultimately judge the living and the dead, including all of us in here. This is the Person being spoken about as the King. He is the Person who one day in the midst of all the confusion and sinfulness that was there in Isreal, was born as a little baby."

Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:14 -- Matt Chandler

"Rejoice, young man, during your childhood, and let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood. And follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes." - Ecclesiastes 11:9a. Amen to that! Right? That's in the Bible?? Ok! Let's party! Seriously. We all know how to rejoice right? This is easy. Realize, though, that our rejoicing is deeply broken, and its on the surface. It's shallow. We rejoice in our youth, in our strength and energy, when underneath God designs that we rejoice in His grace that sustains our energy and youthfulness. We are wicked people.

"Yet, know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things." - Ecclesiastes 11:9b. Oh. Not as much Amen. That gives us quite the gut-check to the brokenness of our rejoicing, does it not?

"Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them'." - Ecclesiastes 12:1. Is there, then, Matt Chandler asks, a way to remember that redeems out rejoicing, and allows us to rejoice beneath the surface, deep down where God created us to rejoice, in Him? If so, how?

Read Scripture. It is everywhere in the pages of the Bible. There is a "gospel rhythm" throughout the Old Testament that points us to Jesus, and reminds us to remember our Creator, and our Savior, and His deliverance for us. Repent and believe in Jesus. Your remembering won't do much redeeming if you are not born again, saved by the blood of Jesus. Approach the throne of grace with confidence. "The litmus test of how well you understand the Gospel is how you respond when you fail." Meditate on the Gospel, constantly. Don't assume it! "If you assume the Gospel, all people will hear is moralistic therapeutic deism! That's all they'll hear." Finally, walk by the Spirit. Don't let a moment come when you are not overwhelmed, and marvelling at the Lord Jesus Christ and His accomplishment and love for you. Not a moment!

WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD

So, in conclusion, the whole counsel of God is something along the lines of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's really all. Jesus Christ really did come to earth as a baby, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He really did live a perfect, sinless life. He really did bring a taste of the Kingdom of God to earth. He really did demonstrate the power of God in healing, and He represents our prime example of who God is, and how He wants us to live. He really went to the cross, willingly, in accordance with the eternal plan of the Father, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He took our sin upon himself, and He really was forsaken by the Father and tasted the cup of His wrath, the punishment we all deserve. He really did die, and was buried. He really did rise from the grave, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, giving us confirmation of His deity and that His sacrifice was approved by the Father, and giving us assurance of salvation and hope that we too will rise in Him. And He really is coming back to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom really will have no end. He really did appoint and elect, before all time, those that are His own and would come to believe, and we really do still need to respond in faith and repentance. To those who by perseverence seek for glory and honor and immortality, He really will grant eternal life. But to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He really will grant wrath and indignation. There really is a heaven, and there really is a hell. Heaven really is way better than you could possibly imagine, and hell really is more agonizing than we could ever describe. And Jesus really is the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him. No one. Really. But, by the grace of God, there really is salvation. Really! Today is the day!