"Blogging from Chicagoland to the Nations about the Hope and Wholeness of Jesus Christ!"

Follow codytibm on Twitter

Everything listed under: Psalms

  • Why mission? Part 1: A Passionate Preoccupation with the Glory of God

        I was once asked to speak at a church on the subject of missions.  Specifically, I was asked to talk about why the Church should be involved in mission in the first place.  Why should we go and proclaim to others the message of Jesus Christ?  Why should we pray for those who do?  Why should we give financially to the cause of global evangelism?  In short, why should we pray, give, and go?

         Over the next several days, I want to take time to reflect on this critical question.  What follows is part 1: 

     

    Why Mission? A Passion for God’s Glory

         A couple of years ago, I studied the topic of prayer in the Bible.  What I wanted to do was to look at everything the Bible had to say about prayer, bit by bit.  As I went along, one thing I looked at was all the recorded prayers of the Bible.  I asked, “What do the pray-ers of the Bible pray about?”  A number of things stood out, but I’ll mention one that is particularly relevant here.  It seems that many of the people of prayer in the Old Testament had a definite preoccupation with the glory and fame of God among all nations.  Let me refer you to an example:

     

    Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the LORD and spread it before the LORD. And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: "O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. Incline your ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see; and hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the living God. Truly, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. So now, O LORD our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone."

    (2Ki 19:14-19)

     

         The background to this passage is complex so I’ll just summarize it.  Hezekiah, the King of Judah, has a big problem.  His kingdom and people are being threatened with annihilation at the hands of King Sennacherib and the Assyrian army.  The Assyrians are no posers, they’ve successfully wiped the floor with quite a few kingdoms before getting around to Judah.  So, Hezekiah, as a man of tremendous passion for Yahweh, the God of Israel, prays.  Hezekiah prays what any of us would pray—“Save us.”  But it is his motive that strikes me.  Of course, he wants God to intervene so that the people won’t perish, so the children won’t be sold into slavery, so the women won’t be raped, so the city won’t be burned to the ground.  But Hezekiah doesn’t mention any of that.  He has a distinct preoccupation with God’s glory.  He basically says, “God, save us, so the nations will know that you are not like other gods.  If you save us, they will know that you really are the Living God.”

         This preoccupation with God’s glory among the nations strikes me as one of the perennial distinctions of the God’s covenant people.  Psalm 67 gives utterance to what should be the passion of all of our hearts:

     

    May God be gracious to us and bless us

    and make his face to shine upon us,

    that your way may be known on earth,

    your saving power among all nations.

    (Psa 67:1-2)

     

         Several years ago I had the opportunity to play in a Christian band (harmonica & vocals, thanks for asking).  One of the coolest things I’ve ever done in my life was traveling with that band to Paris, France for a month of mini-concerts in the Paris subway stations.  We’d set up and play for a few hours as thousands of people passed us on their way to work, home, play, or whatever.  The only songs we knew were about Jesus, so we went with it.  Some people stopped, some people looked, some people ignored us, some came and talked.  It was really a pretty unique experience.

         There was a thought that came to me in that time that lingers in my heart to this day.  The thought of worshipping Jesus Christ in a place where ordinarily, He just simply wouldn’t be worshipped.  I say it lingers with me because still I feel a deep desire to worship Jesus in places where He is usually forsaken, forgotten, or worse.  I believe very strongly in His immeasurable worth.   Jesus should be worshipped at your school, at your workplace, in your home, in your neighborhood, and in every other place.  Is there a place on the planet where Christ is not worthy to be lifted up above all other names?

         Yes, I know, at this point many may disagree with me.  But, I hope not those of you who are disciples of Jesus.  What defines us as followers of Jesus should be this unquenchable passion for His glory, his fame, and the magnification of His name in all the earth.  And as long as a nation, a city, a village, a neighborhood, a home, a heart – as long as there is any place on this planet where Jesus Christ is not magnified above all other names, we should, with every fiber of our being, by every resource at our disposal, in every prayer we can utter passionately pursue the everlasting glory of the Living God in that place.

         And that conviction, inevitably leads to mission.

         Why mission?  Mission is the inevitable outcome of a passionate preoccupation with the promotion of the glory of Lord Jesus Christ among all nations.  So, here is a principle.  There is a direct correlation between the degree to which you value the glory and fame of the Lord Jesus Christ and the degree to which you are personally engaged in global missions.  To wit, the more you care about God’s glory, the more you will pray, give, and go for the cause of missions. 

         So, yeah.  I’ll stop there.  Thoughts?  Comments?  Slanderous accusations? Mindless trivia?

     

  • Theistic Evolution, the Image of God, and Original Sin: Irreconcilable Differences?

         The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:

     

    3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

     

    4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     

         It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas.  There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution.  And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct.  One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history.  However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.

         First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life.  There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible.  I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates.  Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4.  According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image.  It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei.  If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue.  If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play?  At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation?  I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve).  But I think that is really stretching credulity.

          A final word here on the importance of point 4.  You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors.  I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically.  Others try to read it as a science text book.  I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest.  For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing.  Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8).  But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written.  The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history.  There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details.  One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident.  Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).

         Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God.  They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them.  Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature.  We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5).  We are not sinners because we sin.  Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21).  The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior.  We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).

         So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin?  If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from?  I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it.  One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species.   And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.

         So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation.  This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake.  Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints.  And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude  3). 

         In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?”  But now for something completely different . . . .

     

    [*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]

        

      

  • The Uncreated Creator and the Atheist's Response

         In my previous post,  I presented four major principles taught by the Bible with respect to the doctrine of Creation.  I want now to reflect a bit further on these ideas. 

     

    1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

     

         I won’t spend much time on this idea because I feel like I’ve already addressed it to some extent.  The bottom line is that if you push them far enough, Darwinists find it impossible to get around the need for an intelligent designer.  As I said previously, they just can’t get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key.  Or, if you prefer, they can’t roll the Yahtzee. 

         Now, what ends up happening, is that the atheist will almost always respond to this dilemma by asking who created God.  The rationale is that if the complexity of a protein molecule requires an intelligent creator, surely the greatly more complex creator needs an even more intelligent source.  It seems that the attempt is to make the teleological argument for the existence of God seem unreasonable. 

         I have heard Christian apologists respond to this, but I haven’t found their responses all that compelling.  To me,  all this question does it require us to assume that the ultimate source of creation must be itself eternal and self-existent.   Maybe I’m missing something, but I do not get why that doesn’t make sense to the atheist.  It is completely reasonable to assume that there is an intelligence that is responsible for the origin of the universe and that this intelligence is eternal and has aseity.  And it just so happens, that the Bible describes God as having those attributes (e.g. Ps. 90:2).

     

         Have you encountered other arguments that you find difficult to respond to?  Post in the comment section and we’ll talk.

     

    Blessings!

  • Picking your Battles Wisely: What the Bible Really Teaches about Creation

         Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

         It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

         It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

     

    1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

     

    2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

     

    3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

     

    4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     

          To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

         Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

         To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

         Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.

     


Click here to see all TIBM recommended books, films, and music.


If you are South Asian young adult in Chicagoland, help us out by taking this quick survey.

The Ramblings Archive Month by Month

RSS Feed