.jfif)
“Did Jesus go to hell?”
If the relative likelihood of any interpretation of scripture being true has any correlation with its popularity within Christendom, the answer to this one might be yes. However, as you may have discovered for yourself over the years, many quite popular teachings are mistaken, or at very least questionable. Personally, I think the teaching that Jesus went to hell is one of them.
The writers of the Apostles’ Creed thought otherwise.
Over at Stand to Reason, Jonathan Noyes handles the question “How did Satan sin in heaven if you can’t sin in heaven?” along with its worrisome corollary, “Will it be possible for me to sin in heaven?” His daughter texted him the queries from school one day, giving rise to a blog post on a subject I’ve never given a single moment’s thought. But it’s a perfectly reasonable question, so now I’m giving it a moment myself.
Okay, there are definitely a couple of red herrings to avoid along the way, but let’s try to get to the core of it.
.jfif)
When the Lord calls a man to lead his people, these leaders do not generally ask those they lead to do things they are unwilling to do themselves. They do not sit in their comfy tents far behind the battle lines like the kings of the nations, shouting out orders while taking no risks themselves. Rather, they are right in there with their people, doing the same things they are asking them to do and taking the same risks they are.
I don’t want to read too much into a small turn of phrase from Gideon, but it’s hard to miss the takeaway here.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Scott Mannion believes in the value of fellowship: the communal spirit; taking ownership of problem-solving at the local level, rather than looking to government for answers; “distributing the burden of cognition”, as he puts it. He’s promoting fellowship vigorously, because he believes top-down solutions to our problems are simply not working.
Tom: Mannion’s YouTube video is the first time in a very long while that I’ve heard the word “fellowship” used outside a purely religious context. He certainly gets the concept right. IC, this one was your baby: what was it about the video that grabbed you?
“For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.”
What is freedom? Does it mean what people today think it does? Does it mean doing whatever, whenever? Does it mean liberty to surrender to our own impulses? Does it mean opportunity to do whatever-the-heck we feel like at a given moment? Does it mean being exempt from moral censure or practical criticism regardless of what action we may choose to do?
Does it mean total independence? Does it mean not needing anyone, or not feeling the lack of anything?
Better known by his stage name, Gordon Sumner played and sang for a decade in a hugely successful eighties band, and followed that with an eclectic, critically-praised solo career. His net worth has been estimated at over half a billion dollars. His father Ernest was a milkman and factory worker. Neither are dishonorable professions, but middle class at best.
On Ernest’s deathbed, he said to Gordon, “Son, you used your hands better than I did.” Gordon’s reaction: “That was the first compliment he’d ever paid me, and the timing was pretty devastating ... and unforgettable.”
Wow. Talk about leaving your best pitch for the bottom of the ninth ...
“To dwell only in the world of objective analysis is to chill your own soul.” So says David de Bruyn in a post entitled “On Adoring Or Analysing”, which concerns a conflict even mature Christians regularly experience. Put succinctly, you cannot do a thing and think about doing it at the same time.
Peter provides a fine illustration of what happens when your thoughts stray from “Let’s just get closer to the Lord” to “Hey, I’m walking on water in the middle of a storm!” All of a sudden, Peter wasn’t walking on water anymore. He was just wet.
.jpg)
“I have committed _____. Will God ever forgive me?”
I think I can safely say yes. As individual acts go, there is absolutely nothing you have ever done that our Lord will not forgive, assuming your repentance and desire for his forgiveness is genuine. We could fill in that blank space above with any sin, crime or misdemeanor, however heinous or grossly offensive to the Almighty. That is my personal belief on the authority of the word of God.
Let me argue that point for any among our readers who may disagree.
I am back in 1 Chronicles these days, working my way through passages that once inspired a post entitled “Does God Need An Editor?” (Spoiler: my answer was a hard no.)
For those unfamiliar, the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles are almost entirely composed of Hebrew genealogies: descendants of Adam, Abraham, David, twelve of the thirteen tribes of Israel (mysteriously, not including Dan, none of whose progeny appear in Chronicles prior to chapter 27), Israel’s first king Saul, and a number of the returned exiles from the Babylonian captivity.
That’s a whole lot of Hebrew names one after another with very little intervening detail or editorial commentary. The modern Christian reader quite reasonably asks, “Er … what’s in this for me, if anything at all?”
Good question.
.jpeg)
The Hebrew word šāḥâ [literally, “bow down”; figuratively, “worship”] appears a grand total of four times in the book of Judges. That’s not a lot. But it gets worse. All but one of these four have to do with worshiping idols. The solitary exception, where the word refers to the worship of the God of Israel, is in today’s reading.
That’s a sad commentary on the state of Israel during the period of the judges. Accordingly, we may not expect to find out much about true, biblical worship in these pages.
Then again …
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Immanuel Can: I’m going to temporarily suspend our self-imposed five-sentence limit, Tom, in order to tell you a story about something that happened last year when our provincial standardized test was performed.
You need to know that teachers are all given a specific script for what they are and are not allowed to tell students on the day of the test. They are expressly forbidden to go beyond this script, and doing so is grounds for firing. Teachers cannot add any directions, explanations, definitions or any other kind of information to this. They are not allowed to give any guidance once the test begins, no matter what a student wants or needs. It’s standardized, period.
One of the questions on the test asked kids to imagine a picnic, and then write based on their imagining.
My church recently had a “membership” drive. The goal was to get people to sign up to the church roll, then stand up in front of the congregation and proclaim their membership through what they called a “church covenant”.
I’ve been in my local church for 12 years. I didn’t sign. I won’t.
It’s not because my fellow Christians do not know I’m one of them; they do. And I trust it’s not because I’m passive, uncommitted or uninvolved with church life. I’m in there serving, and I doubt there’s anyone in my congregation who couldn’t tell you that. (If there is, that will be corrected the next time they give me the pulpit, which they do fairly frequently.) And it’s not because they have found I am caught up in some particular sin or wickedness. No one has accused me of that — though I’d admit to being your garden variety hypocrite, in the sense that I continually fall short of the level of holiness God deserves from me. But no one so far has called me “hard hearted” or accused me of some crime.
“God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”
“The Lord your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion.”
If you pull up the word confusion [mᵊhûmâ, also translated “panic”] in an online concordance, you will quickly discover all but one of the twelve Old Testament references attribute confusion to God. The example I’ve cited above, in which Moses promises the children of Israel victory over their enemies provided they remain faithful to YHWH, is only one of many.
 |
| Even 99-44/100% is not enough |
Jonathan Noyes and Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason got together recently to produce an excellent post on the subject of the inerrancy of scripture. It’s lengthy, but well worth the time it takes to work through. Full credit to the apologists for doing their job. It’s severely needed these days, especially among the younger generation in our churches.
But in setting out why inerrancy matters and what the scripture claims about itself, Noyes and Koukl include a word of warning about the inerrancy argument that I think is worth taking to heart: they believe the Lord never intended us to debate inerrancy with the skeptics of our generation.
.jfif)
“Does the Bible teach that you should ‘be yourself’?”
I can think of at least one example in scripture of a person who was better off being himself than trying to be something he was not. Saul clothed David with his own armor to fight Goliath, but David was unwilling to rely on protection he had never personally tested in battle. He left the best armor in the kingdom behind and used a sling and stones instead of a sword.
We all know the results of that encounter. David being David got the job done.
.jpg)
A Bible student on Reddit inquires, “Why does the Apostle Paul write in such long sentences?”
This reader is obviously paying attention when he gets into the word of God, and good for him. My brother and I were discussing this issue only a few weeks back, as it’s something we too have noticed over the years. Some of Paul’s sentences are absolutely legendary. They go on for days.
.jfif)
The practice of “putting out a fleece” is not widespread among evangelicals these days, at least as far as I know. You’re probably familiar with the phrase though. We might call it the superstitious interpretation of events as divine guidance in an area where God has already revealed his will.
So you ask for a specific bit of circumstantial evidence, and if the thing you have prayed for happens, you interpret it as God’s direction to move forward with your plans. “Lord, if it rains tomorrow, then I will know you want me to go to Bible College even though my parents want me to go to university.” “Lord, if the phone rings in the next five minutes, I’ll know I should leave my husband.” That sort of thing.
This chapter is where some Christians get the mistaken notion that the fleece trick might actually work. It worked for Gideon.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
We’ve written here on many occasions about current trends within Christendom and what they say about North American Christians. Last week, for instance, we did a piece on giving by millennials. But I wouldn’t say we do an inordinate amount of speculating about the future, because while we can see from scripture where both the world and the people of God are ultimately headed, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to plot exactly where we are on that timeline.
Tom: Still, Carey Nieuwhof is willing to go out on a limb and tell us where he thinks the Church is headed in the next few years in his article “10 Predictions About The Future Church”.
What did you think of Carey’s musings, Immanuel Can?
This is the third in my series on relativism.
I began by pointing out the two types of relativism, epistemic and moral, and showed that epistemic relativism is irrational. After that, I did a post showing that whether we are thinking of science or religious belief, we really know things only probabilistically … and that this is okay — that high-certainty belief is much better than low-certainty belief, and that in any case, being a Christian means knowing God both as an evidentiary probability and as a relational Person, which means with pretty great certainty; better, even, than a scientist can offer. So it is true that truth exists, and it is true that we can know that truth exists.
So far, so good.
“It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.’ ”
There is a good reason fruit is often used as a metaphor for children, both in the Bible and elsewhere. You don’t need to be a geneticist to observe that the fruit of a tree carries in it the nature of the tree on which it grows, and expresses that nature to the world in the next generation. Or at least it should. Real-world results with human beings vary, as we have all observed.
Turnabout being fair play, perhaps you will excuse me using children as a metaphor for fruit. Well, metaphorical fruit at least.