by Tim | Jul 15, 2010 | God, Hell, Our Culture, The Gospel |
When people hear someone preaching that humanity is headed for hell unless they repent, most people take offense and say something along the lines of, “God is a God of love, but you are portraying Him to be the very opposite!” The funny thing is, this has always been God’s way of showing that He loves us. Because there is impending doom on the horizon, God clearly spells it out to warn us and encourage us to repent. It is all throughout the Old Testament in the history of Israel. It’s Peter’s first message on the day of Pentecost, the birth of the Church, when the Holy Spirit first came down. Look at the city of Ninevah. Wasn’t this God’s message to its inhabitants as well? That they were going to be destroyed by God! (Which is why God is accused of not being loving.) But what happened? They repented, and God’s deeper will (that all come to repentance) was fulfilled. You see, God really DOES love us, even though we are in serious trouble with Him if we don’t repent. This is why Jonah had run away to begin with–he knew the heart of God–that God would show mercy on repentant sinners. Remember: Jesus is coming back. The first time He came, the message was to repent and follow CHRIST (John the Baptist). It’s no different this time either. And remember this as well: It was the religious teachers who refused to be baptized by John. It was they who refused to believe that John’s message came from God. They also felt that it wasn’t necessary for them...
by Tim | Jul 4, 2010 | God, My World, The Gospel |
I have always wrestled with this: I know that as Christians, we should help poor people, because it’s the “right thing to do.” Yet, helping the poor is something that everyone feels obligated to do–Christian or not. I often resist focusing in on it, as it often makes Christianity appear to be a “works-based” religion, when I know that salvation comes by God’s grace, not our works. In addition, it seems that in Christian circles, liberal/mainline Christians fixate on helping the poor or other social issues, and as a result sideline what I see as the core of the faith: salvation through Christ from eternal punishment for us sinners and new spiritual rebirth. So it baffled me every time I read in Galatians when Paul recounts how he was appealing to the leaders of the Church to recognize that the Gentiles could also become Christians without having to follow the Law (become circumcised, etc), and at the end how the leaders decide that indeed Paul is right. But according to Paul in Galatians, they give him this one instruction: All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. Why does this keep coming up in Scripture and in Jesus’ words? Why does Jesus tell people to sell all their possessions and give to the poor? Why is this so important? Aren’t we saved by God’s grace, and not by good works, such as this? I would like to throw out something that I’ve been thinking recently: I have been realizing recently that I don’t really trust Jesus to...
by Tim | Jul 1, 2010 | God, The Gospel |
I’ve always said yes. Why? Because not everyone can recall a “crisis” moment of salvation where they can point back and say, “That’s when I became born again.” That’s because humans don’t usually make instantaneous decisions–the vast majority of our decisions come about through various lengthy processes. Unfortunately, I realize more fully today that I have often equated conversion as merely “when a person makes their decision to surrender to Christ,” and that is why I’ve considered the conversion of a soul to sometimes transpire as a process. But that’s because I’ve been one of those Arminians Gone Wild who often finds themselves reducing conversion to the un-supernatural realm of persons merely making a decision. And it’s true, many decisions we make in life are indeed not “crisis” decisions–many happen more as a process. So if we focus on conversion simply as a decision humans make to believe in Jesus, it’s obvious that we will conclude that conversion often happens over time as a process, with no definable crisis moment. Yet, today I’m reminded that conversion isn’t defined by a decision we humans make, so I must qualify my answer. According to the Bible, when we are born again, we become inhabited by the Holy Spirit. This is something God miraculously does–He converts us by giving us His Holy Spirit, we don’t slowly convert ourselves as we make this decision over time. There is no other way to understand God’s part in this process, except that it should occur in a precise moment in time–where at some specific moment, the Holy Spirit inhabits us and we become spiritually reborn....
by Tim | Jun 28, 2010 | God, Our Culture, The Church World, The Gospel |
That’s kinda the imagery I think of when I consider seeker-driven churches. It’s this mindset that we have to do and spend all we can to convince/attract/appeal to the unchurched to come to church/God. It’s like our theology of free will propels us to do all we can to get people to choose to come to church or to come to God. It’s why in the past, when we didn’t have problems getting people into church, but had plenty difficulty getting them to make a decision for Christ, we Arminians worked hard to make altar calls as dramatic and compelling as possible. And why in the present (since that’s not effective anymore) we are now looking for the next thing that will be effective at getting people to walk in our church doors, because they’re just not coming anymore. I don’t think this mindset is always a bad thing, except that it seems like we Arminians have concluded that the Holy Spirit really isn’t that effective at drawing people to Christ, so we have to use lots of money, talent, professionalism, entertainment to make up the slack. I know what the rebuttal would be: perhaps the Holy Spirit is using these very things to draw people to God? I think in some churches He is, no doubt. But I question this assertion as a given, as I see that church has become simply a business model that has proven to be effective at growing one’s church organization. In other words, GE can grow a successful and profitable business without the Holy Spirit, and churches can do the same thing,...
by Tim | Jun 15, 2010 | Hell, The Church World, The Gospel |
Ok, so that’s really a lie. That is, unless you’re a Methodist and you are convinced that you’re a Baptist if you believe that everyone has an eternal destination in heaven or hell, and that it’s the Church’s responsibility to reach the unchurched so that they don’t go to hell–well, then that makes Andy Stanley a Baptist. Because that’s emphatically what he believes and is the sole reason why his church is 100% devoted to reaching the unchurched instead of worrying about trying to keep those who are already unchurched. That’s what he shared in his sermon yesterday. I’m afraid that this is a devastating blow to all Methodists out there who are trying their hardest not to be Baptist, and as a result don’t want to affirm that people go to hell if they aren’t reached with the Gospel. Now Methodists everywhere must make a decision–do I still want to model myself after a preacher whose church is modeled the way it is because he believes people are going to hell? Now they must abandon Andy Stanley–where else can they turn to for a model of ministry? They had to abandon their founder, John Wesley, long ago because he clearly was Baptist as well, as he also believed that the world is going to hell, unless they come to faith in Christ by believing the Gospel. Dear Methodists, Salvation, the Gospel, eternity in heaven and hell–these are NOT Baptist ideas. They are central to the Christian faith. If you indeed choose to continue modeling your church after North Point, don’t just model after the method–which is least important....
by Tim | Jun 13, 2010 | God, The Church World, The Gospel, The Scriptures |
I had a conversation with Audra’s brother a few days ago, in which he said that he couldn’t understand what the point is for a church to exist if it’s not evangelical. I agreed with him. It quickly turns into merely a social institution (and a rather unimpressive one to the world at that). I suspect by the term “evangelical,” he meant a church that takes the Bible literally. At least, that’s my simple definition, although it’s a little more complex than that. By and large, however, evangelical churches tend to view the Bible more literally than mainline or liberal churches. That’s why they evangelize. Yet with words like “evangelical” or “literal,” pretty soon words like “conservative” or “liberal” start coming up, and it starts to sound political. And general lay-folk start to check out as the discussion starts to sound divisive or unimportant. That’s why I’m thinking that in order to avoid such language (which can be misleading or confusing), I propose that we start talking about how “seriously” a person or a church takes the Bible. After all, some parts of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally–they are written in a genre of figurative language, etc. Yet, even parts of the Bible that aren’t supposed to be taken literally–even these passages must be taken very seriously. For example, when Jesus says that it would be better to gouge your right eye if it causes you to sin, so that you go to heaven with one eye instead of hell with two eyes….there are very few people, evangelical or not, who would take this passage literally...
