As yesterday’s thought expressed, I have recently had a major shift in how I view the Gospel. Whereas previously, I would have described salvation through Jesus Christ as an invitation or an offer, I now think it’s far more accurate to describe it as a command, really the major command God issues. Consider these passages in the New Testament:
Just after the famous John 3:16, verse 18 says, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Acts 17:30-31 says, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
And 1 John 3:23 says, “This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.”
See, what’s fascinating about thinking of belief in the Gospel as a command rather than an offer is that it winds up restoring this simple faith to its rightful place as the pinnacle and foundation of all other moral obligations. We must believe in the greatest act of love God has ever performed, because to deny it is to deny His very Nature.
Selling or telling?
Imagine you and a friend are discussing a plan to murder someone when a police officer walks up and says, “Excuse me, I overheard your conversation, and I’d like to encourage you to make a better decision. You see, murder is a very foolish endeavor, and you’d be much happier choosing differently.”
If this sounds ridiculous, it’s because a cop is not a salesman enticing you to pick between valid alternatives. He’s an authority figure. And regarding a plan to murder, his job (at the very least) would be to order you to stop it. In other words, he would command you, not invite you, to obey the law.
Similarly, whenever Christians talk to the world around us about morality, we usually have the good sense to know that we are justified in denouncing adultery or theft with all the authority of God behind us. Sure, we may reason with people, but this is a kindness, not an obligation. Yet sometimes it leads us to think of morality as some buffet choice among competing dishes.
But here’s the funny thing. What we know about morality, we seem to suddenly forget about the greatest moral obligation of all: having faith in God. And it makes me suddenly wonder just how much mischief has been done over the years by the notion that believing the Gospel is an offer God makes to humanity rather than a command He issues to us.
If this sounds ridiculous, it’s because a cop is not a salesman enticing you to pick between valid alternatives. He’s an authority figure. And regarding a plan to murder, his job (at the very least) would be to order you to stop it. In other words, he would command you, not invite you, to obey the law.
Similarly, whenever Christians talk to the world around us about morality, we usually have the good sense to know that we are justified in denouncing adultery or theft with all the authority of God behind us. Sure, we may reason with people, but this is a kindness, not an obligation. Yet sometimes it leads us to think of morality as some buffet choice among competing dishes.
But here’s the funny thing. What we know about morality, we seem to suddenly forget about the greatest moral obligation of all: having faith in God. And it makes me suddenly wonder just how much mischief has been done over the years by the notion that believing the Gospel is an offer God makes to humanity rather than a command He issues to us.
Restraint, the hidden virtue.
A lot of people have devoted a lot of time to critiquing President Obama’s State of the Union address. Even I spent most of last night’s show dissecting it and lamenting over so many of the elements in it. However (and this is a massive however), I want to give credit in as lavish a way possible to the President for the one most notable omission from his speech.
In the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, the most normal thing for a liberal Democratic President to do on Tuesday would have been to talk about gun restrictions. I’m sure many people urged him to do so, wanting to see him use this moment to advance their agenda. But he didn’t. He completely avoided it.
And bravo!
See, it’s rare that we give people credit for their restraint, but in this case it’s well-deserved. After all, conservatives have been for weeks criticizing liberals for exploiting the assassination attempt as a pretext for gun control. And if we would so loudly criticize them when they do this, then we must be equally as vocal in praising someone when he doesn’t.
In the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, the most normal thing for a liberal Democratic President to do on Tuesday would have been to talk about gun restrictions. I’m sure many people urged him to do so, wanting to see him use this moment to advance their agenda. But he didn’t. He completely avoided it.
And bravo!
See, it’s rare that we give people credit for their restraint, but in this case it’s well-deserved. After all, conservatives have been for weeks criticizing liberals for exploiting the assassination attempt as a pretext for gun control. And if we would so loudly criticize them when they do this, then we must be equally as vocal in praising someone when he doesn’t.
It could be worse....
Proverbs 26 is a fascinating chapter which opens by denouncing fools. They don’t deserve honor. They deserve corporal punishment. They must be ignored or answered judiciously. Don’t trust them with your correspondence. They mishandle wisdom. Again, they don’t deserve honor. Again, they mishandle wisdom. You shouldn’t hire them. And they are like vomiting dogs.
So far so good. Fools are really bad. Don’t be like them. Check. Got the message.
Then in verse 12 Solomon drops this bombshell on us. “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” Whoa!
All this time, he’s been setting the fool as the lowest of the low in every way, and then he says that even as bad as a fool is, he’s still ahead of the self-righteous man! And as if he hadn’t quite made the point fully enough, just three chapters later, he says, “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 29:20)
Until today, I never would have guessed Solomon had heard of talk radio.
So far so good. Fools are really bad. Don’t be like them. Check. Got the message.
Then in verse 12 Solomon drops this bombshell on us. “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” Whoa!
All this time, he’s been setting the fool as the lowest of the low in every way, and then he says that even as bad as a fool is, he’s still ahead of the self-righteous man! And as if he hadn’t quite made the point fully enough, just three chapters later, he says, “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 29:20)
Until today, I never would have guessed Solomon had heard of talk radio.
Vocabulary is paint, not timber.
As a lover of language, I have no problem with people using rhetoric to amplify a point or make an idea more enticing or even beautiful. On the other hand, because the lure of terminology is so great, many people wind up using language to score points or even win arguments despite there being no substance underneath the linguistic smoke. Here are two examples.
The next time you hear someone espouse a right to something or other, you might consider asking him, “What, exactly, is the difference between something you want, something you need, and something you have a right to receive?”
The next time someone accuses you of bashing someone, you might consider asking him, “What, exactly, is the difference between disagreeing with someone, criticizing him, and bashing him?”
In all such cases, be sure to get a clear answer. However, since clarity will probably undermine the point being made, you should also be prepared for the person to get angry at you for asking such simple questions. That will be the surest sign you’ve properly identified the problem.
The next time you hear someone espouse a right to something or other, you might consider asking him, “What, exactly, is the difference between something you want, something you need, and something you have a right to receive?”
The next time someone accuses you of bashing someone, you might consider asking him, “What, exactly, is the difference between disagreeing with someone, criticizing him, and bashing him?”
In all such cases, be sure to get a clear answer. However, since clarity will probably undermine the point being made, you should also be prepared for the person to get angry at you for asking such simple questions. That will be the surest sign you’ve properly identified the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
