prayeramedic.com » Theology

Christian Diversity

Dan — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:55:57 +0000

A new multi-author blog has been formed: Christian Diversity. I have been invited to be an author, and all of my more theological and philosophical writings will now most likely find their way to that blog.

The blog currently features eight authors who each consider themselves to be either nondenominational, Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, or refuse to be labeled.

As regular readers are aware, there are only a few more days remaining to help prayeramedic.com choose a new name! We’ve had some good ideas submitted in the contest and are looking forward to beginning a new blogging chapter. For those of you that aren’t aware, Tiffany and I (Dan) intend to begin a new blog where both of us will contribute more. Enter the contest!

Your religion is nothing more than man’s failed attempt to turn faith into a science

Dan — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:30:53 +0000

“Your religion is nothing more than man’s failed attempt to turn faith into a science.” I actually said these words to a theology professor in 2003 shortly before my complete disillusionment with Christianity. I was tired of being fed dead, theological answers to life’s living, breathing problems and experiences. Don’t get me wrong, theology is immensely valuable to us when it comes to defending against heresy and combating error. When properly understood, it can also be helpful in grappling with the problem of evil. But when theology simply becomes a dead system of concepts and loses touch with people’s hearts and souls, we’re in the danger zone. I’ll call this academic theology for the purposes of the blog post, but keep in mind that I am NOT saying all academic theology is bad. I will simply use this term to refer to theology devoid of any practical application to people’s lives.

I recently came across a great article entitled “The Bible is About God’s Character, Not Concepts.” The article got me thinking about some of my own experiences and thought journeys. Here’s some highlights from the article:

“[The Bible is] not about ideas, it’s about people,” … “Ideas were not made in God’s image, people were.” Christians should not imagine that faith is merely about theological description….

People are tempted to pursue a conceptual understanding even of God because it gives them a sense of control amid a world full of uncertainty. But assurance for Christians does not come by way of their ability to describe unchanging truth…. They are secure in the knowledge of God’s character.

Christian confidence lies in a God who came to mankind in Jesus Christ, who loved, died and resurrected for them….

Making a science out of an attempt to understand God may give people a sense of power. Yet, like science, which it resembles, theology as it is done today cannot give insight into human meaning and ethics….

Philosophy cannot address the deepest needs of humankind. That is because human beings are not just thinkers. In contrast, writers of the Bible had a better understanding of what it means to be human. Human life revolves around the story and history….

[For example,] “How do you get to know somebody?

It is not by asking them about their weight or DNA composition. “You ask questions about their history….” That will offer a glimpse into the underlying person.

… People get to know others by observing them in different situations. Knowing people is about knowing their character, which is revealed through their behavior.

In the same way, “we get to know Jesus because we see Him in a whole range of different situations….”

The Gospels, stories about Jesus relating what He said and did, record His encounters with an adulterous woman and chief tax collector, among others. The “bias” of His disciples who wrote the accounts of His life and ministry is not an issue, contrary to contention in some academic circles. That is because every history is an interpretation….

This is so very true. I don’t believe in Jesus as a theological statement, I believe in Jesus because He was a real man who walked the earth, died for my sins, and rose from the dead, demonstrating His power over sin, death and Satan. I love Him because I have had the opportunity to get to know Him as the Word, where I also learn about Him (John 1:1, 14).

Do you think academic theology at times simply masks our desire to control our destiny? Do you think academic theology can obscure human meaning more than aid in its understanding? What are the positive benchmarks of academic theology? What has academic theology got right, and what can we learn from it?

Greeting Card Theology and Church Growth

Dan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 06:13:02 +0000

We have a couple of large churches in our area that are rapidly growing. I’ve attended a few services at some of these churches and a couple of them seem to have one thing in common: greeting card theology. Part of this is because talented communicators have learned that people are more likely to remember cliches than bullet points or thesis statements, and now pastors are trying to offer a cliche statement for every sermon so that people remember the main point.

It is not always wrong to use a cliche to communicate a point, but it is wrong when we oversimplify the faith and boil down tough concepts that people need to wrestle with into easier-to-swallow cliches. Here are some of the most recurring biblically incorrect cliches:

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
God hates the sin but loves the sinner.
All you need to do to go to heaven is ask Jesus into your heart.
It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.

Each of these cliches contain mostly truth, which is why they can be so dangerous. For the most part, these cliches agree with scripture – but not quite. I’ll briefly walk through each one and show why it’s unscriptural.

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. This is true in a sense, but the real problem lies in the underlying focus: YOU. The focus here is not on God and His plan, but on you and how you fit into that plan. Many churches attract tons of followers by making it all about YOU. They have tons of programs for people in every stage of life, uplifting sermons about how you can be a better person, and inspiring worship music that is all about ME and how I worship God.

God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Do you know who said this? Gandhi. It is true that God so loved “the world,” and so He sent His Son to die for us (John 3:16). But it is also true that God’s wrath abides on those who do not obey the Son (John 3:36). This cliche is a half-truth. It is partially true because God does not want anyone to perish, He wants everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). But it is also false because outside of Christ we are hell-bound, hostile enemies of God (Romans 8:7-8). I’m not saying it is wrong to use this cliche, I know this is word-mincing to some extent. I’m just issuing a caution. Remember, this statement is not scripture – it’s a cliche!

All you need to do to go to heaven is ask Jesus into your heart. There is a couple of problems here. First of all, nowhere in the bible are we promised that if we ask Jesus into our heart that He will actually come in. Second, why would Jesus want to enter a sinner’s heart? Your heart is a wretched and vile thing. He wants to destroy your heart and give you a new one (Jeremiah 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26)! I won’t even elaborate on this one other than to say that this is nowhere to be found in scripture.

It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship. I’ve actually posted about this cliche before, but here’s a quick recap: I’m tired of people using the cliche that Christianity isn’t about do’s and don’ts, it’s about a relationship. This is true, but it’s somewhat of a false dichotomy. It often masks antinomianism (belief that we no longer have any obligation to God’s Law because of Christ). All relationships are guarded and preserved by rules. Try telling your wife after you’ve had an affair, “Come on, I thought our marriage was about the relationship, not all these do’s and don’ts.” So sure, it is about the relationship with Jesus. But all relationships have boundaries for protection. Keeping those boundaries doesn’t make the relationship go well, but the relationship certainly will not go well if you do not keep them.

Simplistic cliches are only part of the problem. The larger problem is the fact that most churches focus primarily on the people in the pews, instead of teaching them to focus on Christ and NOT on themselves. It’s not about us! The church needs to point people to Christ and what He has done for them, not what they are doing for Him. The focus is supposed to be on God, not us. The problem with a lot of greeting card theology is that it paints a picture of a false Christ that is really all about me. In DeYoung & Kluck’s book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, DeYoung writes:

“…The Jesus [many churches] like is almost certainly not the Jesus who calls sinners to repentance, claimed to be the unique Son of God, and died for our sins. He is almost certainly a nice guy, open-minded, spiritually ambiguous, and a good example. He is guru Jesus who resembles Bono in a bathrobe….

Hasn’t this ‘more complete picture of Jesus’ shaved of all of the sharp edges of the gospel? No one will be offended by a transcendent yet personal god who accepts us perfectly and wants to give our lives meaning and purpose. But this is not the Jesus the apostles preached. Their Jesus was transcendent and personal, but He warned of judgment and demanded repentance. He spoke freely of sin, salvation, and the necessity of new birth. The apostles preached Christ dead, buried, and raised for our justification. They preached Christ and Him alone. They told us all that God had accomplished in Christ for miserable sinners. That was their message and the world hated them for it….

In our self-esteeem-oriented, easily offended, suffering-averse world, I fear that the church is too eager to be liked.”

Allow me to close with a quote from Todd Wilken, host of Issues, Etc., Christ-Centered Cross-Focused Talk Radio:

“Are you tired of worship that’s more about self-help than the Savior, the Christian rather than the Christ; and Christ in you, instead of Christ for you? It’s not about you, it’s about Jesus for you.”

What other greeting card theology cliches have you seen? What’s wrong with them?

Objective and Subjective Justification

Dan — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:47:32 +0000

Charles Lehmann over at Drowning Myself Whenever I Can has begun a great new weekly series focusing on key theological doctrines, beginning with the foundational truths of objective and subjective justification.

Charlie is unashamedly teaching Lutheran doctrine, but these truths of justification are foundational to the Christian faith and to all denominations (despite the fact that everyone has slightly different interpretations of justification).

Justification simply means “being justified before God.” A helpful memory trick is thinking of being justified as “just as if I’d never sinned.”

If you have ever ever had any of these questions, I’d encourage you to read his posts:

Did Jesus die for everybody, or only for “the elect?”
If Jesus did atone for everyone’s sins, then won’t hell be empty?
If not, why are some saved and not others?

Charlie has answered these questions and will continue to answer more each week as he posts on a new topic. Check it out!

A Note on Theological Posts
Theology is important because it affects people. The doctrine of justification is of extreme importance because it is the belief about how we are saved by God from sin, death, and the devil. I am not trying to engage in arbitrary discussion about lofty theology, this is very practical because it deals with how men and women become believers in Jesus Christ. The doctrines of objective and subjective justification are consequently the two most-attacked and confused doctrines of the Christian Church. I hope you find Charlie’s posts helpful.

Soundbite on Decisional Theology

Dan — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:30:19 +0000

This is a short soundbite from a talk by Bryan Wolfmueller entitled “Decisional Theology.” You can listen to the full talk at Issues, Etc. by clicking here.

Soundbite on Decisional Theology from Dan O'Day on Vimeo.

This is a short soundbite from a talk by Bryan Wolfmueller entitled “Decisional Theology.” You can listen to the full talk at Issues, Etc. here: http://issuesetc.org/2010/01/14/2446/

Those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel

Dan — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:49:53 +0000

I know that’s a bold statement, but I didn’t say it. The apostle Paul did. That is a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 9:14, and it is preceded by saying that this is the Lord’s command (not Paul’s). Here’s the whole passage, in context:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it (1 Corinthians 9:3-18, NIV, emphasis mine).

Matthew Henry wrote this in his commentary on v. 6:

[Paul] had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people’s duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.

In other words, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel have the right to earn their living from it. This is the modern day pastor (which corresponds more to the biblical role of elder). Paul chose to serve in bi-vocational ministry, that is, he chose to earn his living from a separate job, that of tentmaking. But that was Paul’s choice. Paul makes it clear that biblically, ministers have a RIGHT to earn their living from preaching the gospel.

However, Paul also says that voluntary preachers receive a reward for their duties, while those who exercise their right to a salary “simply discharge the trust committed to [them].” In other words, their vocation is no better than the local plumber, teacher, tax collector, or nurse. Each of these is commanded to be a full-time minister of the gospel (all believers), but some may earn their living from it as a right, which has clearly been commanded by the Lord.

Paul recognized that as a missionary in his context, bi-vocational ministry was a more effective approach. He willingly sets aside his right to financial support so that people will not think his message is just a fancy speech designed to get money. Some Greek orators made their living by traveling and entertaining audiences with speeches. Others formed schools and charged students for lectures. Paul does not want anyone to think his message is motivated by selfish concerns. But Paul’s willingness to support himself does not change the Lord’s command. Ministers of the gospel have a right to financial support, and believers have an obligation to provide that support.

The command is not aimed solely at vocational ministers so that they should run around demanding their support (although it would be biblically warranted if their “flock” didn’t support them), the command appears to target all believers so that they recognize that it is their responsibility to support the work of the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-20 says:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Elders here are appointed leaders, not merely those recognized because of their age and experience. Those folks are actually addressed in v. 1: “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” In Acts 14:23, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” “Double honor” in the 1 Timothy 5 passage does not refer to salary, but this passage does reiterate the point that “the worker deserves his wages.” It also establishes that those elders whose work is preaching and teaching are serving in an honorable vocation. It is a respectable career choice.

This becomes even more pertinent as more and more heresies abound and the resurrection of false teachings from the past continues. It is extremely beneficial to the church to have individuals who receive in-depth training in the bible, church history, theology, and practical ministry (counseling, helping people cope with traumatic events, addiction therapy, etc.). There is nothing wrong with this, indeed it is very helpful to the Church. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to go to seminary to learn about church history, biblical languages, etc. Many more don’t have the opportunity to go, and even more do not have the intellectual capacity to retain this knowledge. This doesn’t invalidate the education and training, however. A lot of people aren’t smart enough to go to medical school, but we’re all glad that we have doctors. The same is true of pastors. They are not better than other believers because of their training, but they are to be respected and should be able to earn a living from their work.

Not everyone is meant to serve in this role. Ephesians 4:11-13 says:

It was [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Clearly not all are called to fulfill these roles in the Church. The purpose of these roles is to prepare God’s people for good works of service, building up the body of Christ “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Since this hasn’t happened yet, we still need people to fulfill these roles. Not just anyone should jump into these roles, either. James 3:1 says:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

God apparently even has a higher standard of judgment for those who teach His people. This should not be taken lightly. To ensure that not just anyone became an elder, Paul set up standards for them. Hear his words in Titus 1:5-9:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

There you have it, the requirements of an elder and parts of his job description, and a reiteration of the fact that it is an appointed position. Paul also mentions here (and in several other places) that elders should not pursue dishonest gain. This precludes those folks who would serve in these roles solely to make money, or to make it dishonestly (such as through prosperity teachings). That would be wrong. But it doesn’t preclude them from making an honest living from preaching and teaching the gospel.

There are a lot more scripture passages that we could explore, but this post is long enough as it is. It is a topic that deserves attention, though. And it is one I should have posted at least a few weeks ago before I started shifting some of my terminology on this blog. I apologize for not sharing these thoughts sooner with you, my readers. I know I have written blog posts with the opposite stance in the past, but the clear teachings of the word of God prevail, as explained above. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion on this issue, feel free to comment and read the comments to gain more insight.

Why Christians Should Debate Each Other

Dan — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:47:47 +0000

I saw these quotes at Justin Taylor’s blog. They are from John Stott’s book, Christ the Controversialist (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970):

On what Christians should do when they disagree with each other:

The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor to conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them. (p. 22)

On why we should speak the truth in love, not being truthless in love or loveless in truth:

We seem in our generation to have moved a long way from this vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his apostles displayed. But if we loved the glory of God more, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would not refuse to engage in necessary controversy, when the truth of the gospel is at stake. The apostolic command is clear. We are “to maintain the truth in love,” being neither truthless in our love, nor loveless in our truth, but holding the two in balance. (p. 19)

Only Through The Cross of Christ

Dan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:30:54 +0000

In John 14:6, Jesus says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” But how often we leave Christ out of the picture. Or we introduce a false Christ who simply wants to better society and love people. We forget that He had to die for us, and that we must also die in order to become a part of His family. All sinners must die, for the wages of sin is death. They can either die eternally, or they can die baptismally. I saw this picture at Veith’s blog and thought it exemplified Jesus’ words in John 14:6 pretty well:

Is this picture accurate? Could it be improved? What thoughts does it elicit?

My Father Since Birth

Dan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:36:43 +0000

Growing up, there were times my parents and I didn’t get along. I’m sure you can relate. In fact, for a large portion of my adolescence, I was pretty convinced that my parents were idiots. I certainly didn’t respect them very much, and at times I thought I didn’t need them. Later in life, I have now come to appreciate and cherish them both, and I recognize their significant contribution to my life. They have shaped and molded me into the man that I am today, even when I resented and even failed to recognize it.

Despite my feelings and lack of recognition towards them, they have always been my parents since birth. They never ceased to be my parents. Our relationship with our heavenly Father is very similar in this regard. In our spiritual (re)birth we become His children, and He becomes our Father. I failed to acknowledge Him as such throughout much of my life, and I certainly didn’t (and often don’t) appreciate Him enough. But all the while, He was still my Father.

The other day someone mentioned to me that she had a hard time believing that human choice and sincerity plays no role in our salvation. She said that despite being baptized at a young age and being raised in the church, she didn’t feel that she was saved until she began taking her faith seriously as a young adult. Today I was thinking about the analogy above, and how God has been my heavenly Father even when I failed to recognize Him as such. I think we run into trouble when we make our sincerity or choice a part of salvation. God saves us, we respond to that, but only after He has saved us.

“To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” -John 1:12-13 (NIV)

What role did I play in being born into this world? None. But now that I am born, I have the choice of how I will live. Our spiritual rebirth is no different. I played no role in being “born again” (justification), but now I must choose to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in order to become more like Jesus each day (sanctification). We run into trouble when we use our feelings as a gauge of our salvation. They can be an indication of reality, but they also can mislead us. As children of God, we will continually grow in grace and in appreciation of what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ. We will continue to understand more and more of the depth of His love and compassion for us. But as we grow in knowledge and grace, we don’t become “more saved” than when we were first baptized into His death and raised to life through faith with Him (Romans 6:4). We are saved by one thing: Jesus Christ took our place on the cross and died for our sins.

My dad has been my dad since I was born. And my heavenly Dad has been my Dad since I was reborn. The same is true for you.

Can an infant have saving faith?

Dan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:44:29 +0000

Last night I received a comment from Ty on a past post dealing with salvation. His comment read:

I personally believe what you saying makes sense theologically, and the Reformed position makes sense to me, however what I do not understand, is how someone can hold the Lutheran position while still holding to infant baptism? You said “by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word.” I’m not sure of your position on infant baptism, but I am not sure how Luther or any Reformed theologian could hold to this view while also confirming baptism of infants, unless they believe that the infants can process saving faith? Interesting question to think through. Thanks for the post.

I posted the following as a response (which is also part of a conversation between myself and a family member on Facebook recently) and wanted to share it for everyone to read:

Yes Ty, I do believe that infants can have saving faith. First, we’d have to agree on original sin. The Bible teaches that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). The human heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9). The natural man is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). By nature, we pass “our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (Titus 3:3). We are inclined toward evil (Gen 6:5), conceived in sin, and “brought forth in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5). All of us “like sheep have gone astray” (Isa. 53:6). Even “our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before the Lord (Isa. 64:6). We are by nature not just morally tainted, but “children of wrath,” deserving of God’s punishment, even before we actually sin in our flesh (Eph. 2:3). Even on the best of days, we are divided, doing what we don’t want to do and failing to do what we know is right (Rom. 7:18-19). Because of the Fall, we are hardwired toward evil. We sinned in Adam and died through his trespass, inheriting his guilt and a corrupt nature (see Rom. 5:12-21). In other words, we all deserve hell from the moment of our conception.

But God has provided a means for salvation: Christ’s death on the cross. And “all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death[.] We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Baptism is a way that infants can come to saving faith in Jesus.

So back to the question, “Can an infant have saving faith?” Think of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy while in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:44). Remember also that Jesus said that “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42). Notice that He said little ones “who believe in me,” indicating that these little ones possessed genuine faith in Christ. The Greek for little ones in both of these passages is μικρων (mikron), which implies children under the age of three. Psalm 22:9-10 says, “Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” 2 Timothy 3:15 points out how “how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures. . . .” The word used for infancy in this passage is βρέφος (brephos), which means an unborn child, embryo, baby, or infant! God can clearly create faith in anyone’s hearts — even infants, mentally handicapped, and Alzheimer’s patients — because salvation does not depend on our own reasoning abilities. This might even offend our reason and sensibilities, but the Scriptures are clear that infants and children can and do have faith. A child is upheld in the Bible as the ultimate model for how to receive Christ as Lord, for Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).

The Bible is careful to show how faith is a gift of God. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). The gift of God is precisely the faith through which salvation comes. “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29). “You were raised with Him through faith in the working of God” (Colossians 2:12).

Faith is a gift, created by God’s Word. Once again, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Of course, God does not do the believing for us. It is we, infants and adults, who believe, just as it is we who live, and yet just as God gives and sustains our life, so God gives and sustains our faith.

If you’ve ever got some free time, read my post entitled American Jesus: A Manifesto. It’s available at http://prayeramedic.com/2008/12/american-jesus-a-manifesto/. That will answer a lot of your questions about what I believe on these issues. I’m glad you enjoyed the post and thanks for stopping by!

So that was my response, let the madness ensue….