A Shoddy Theology of Heaven

It is extremely popular in most evangelical circles to bash the health and wealth, name it and claim it theology. I'm glad. We ought to ridicule such dangerous doctrine. However, I find that in practice many evangelicals are not much better off. Instead of expecting material riches now, they simply believe that they will be filthy rich after they die. This is true, just as it is true that God's hears our petitions and will grant us whatever we ask for. Take this little quote for example, "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you recieve them, and you will have them" (Mark 11:24). That's an unqualified promise there. It may be qualified elsewhere, and it is, but in this context Jesus says ask for it, believe it, and you've got it.

If Mark 11:24 were all I had to go on, I'd be wearing a suit made of gold, a humongous gaudy tie, and I'd have my own show on TBN. But Mark 11:24 is not alone. I have James 4:3 that says, "You ask and do not receive, because you ak amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." How do I square this with Mark 11:24? It seems that anything that I ask for that tends toward the glory of God is going to be granted, but anything I ask for simply as an end in itself is not going to be given.

That's the problem with many believer's idea of heaven. In truth, they are not so much looking forward to seeing Jesus there as much as they can't wait to walk down Gold Street Avenue and have their great big mansion. They want to get into that place where their treasures are heaped up. Like Scrooge McDuck, they want to swim in their personal treasure vault for awhile. Instead of heaven being about the glory of the Lamb of God, He is simply a means to an end, and that end is living forever in a lavish paradise.

Have you ever heard something to the effect of this statement?:

"You don't think we'll just spend all our time worshipping, do you?"

That is the sort of mentality that makes me wonder if we really infected with a sort of "health and wealth" gospel that makes heaven our playground, and that most only look forward to it because of all the "cool stuff" they'll get.

As I have said before, heaven is heaven because Jesus Christ is there in all of His splendor. Heaven would be heaven if Jesus were there if the streets were gravel and I lived in a shanty. It is His glory and majesty and the greatness of seeing Him that we should be teaching people to look most forward to. Beside Him, all other rewards will be pale and lackluster.

On The Brink of Madness

I consider myself to be a fairly patient and level-headed individual. This could be simple pride, but I believe that those who know me would testify to the truth of that. But something has happened to me today which I cannot abide or deal with in a mature manner. I have almost lost all semblance of my Christian character. What is this horrible thing that has happened?...I have lost a key.

My father-in-law was gracious enough to let me borrow his Honda ATV. In order to crank this thing, you have to have the key. A little, 1/2 inch, black key. If it is lost, one has to actually take the ignition off of the four-wheeler and take it down to the dealership where they will attempt to make a new key.

The thing that drive me utterly mad is that the stupid key is in this house! Somewhere, that key is simply lying there, probably in the open. Or it may be, as I am coming to believe, the key has inadvertently slipped into a hole in the space-time continuum, and short of a Star Trek science miracle, I will never see that key again. Actually, I think that the only way that I will ever manage to close the space-time rift would be to get out my tools, take off the ignition thingy, go down to the Honda place and spend at least $50, and then that key will re-materialize on this particular plane of existence...most likely on my dresser.

Please pray for me. I am having trouble thinking about anything other than this key. I cannot sit still for more than two minutes without going scrounging for it. Also, if my wife asks me, "Where do you remember having it last?" or "Why don't you retrace your steps?" one more time I may start tearing my hair out. Other phrases that may provoke utter madness are, "Did you look under the ______?" Or, "Did you check your pockets?"

Baptism: Arm Wrestling with John Calvin Cont.

I have a great respect for classical Calvinistic theology. It is, to say the least, neat, tidy, and well thought out. It provides a wonderful theological lens through which one can well interpret the Scriptures. Before anyone goes bonkers about having a "theological lens" in place to study Scripture, let me submit to you that even the most ardent defenders of "Sola Scriptura" have some sort of grid they use to interpret Scripture. If you were stranded on an island by yourself, knew nothing of Christianity, and one day a Bible washed ashore and you read it and were converted, as you began to study you would naturally begin to form your own grid.

These grids are absolutely necessary, but they also cause blind spots. That is why the church, and individuals, must be in constantly in the process of reforming. Notice I didn't say can cause blind spots, I said that our grids cause blind spots. That is why discussion, reading, and submitting ourselves to expository preaching are so essential.

Infant baptism is part of the covenantal grid. Here is how this system works in Biblical interpretation.

Israel = Church

In Calvin's theology, Israel represents the seed of the Church, and the modern Church is now the true Israel. In many ways, I am in total agreement with that. I believe that I will sit at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a joint-heir of the promise given to Abraham. By faith, I am Abraham's spiritual descendant. However, I do not think that this completely dismisses ethnic Israel anymore more than saying that there is "no more male or female" has eliminated sex.

Once one grasps the idea that the covenant of faith that God made with Abraham is the same covenant that God made with the church, one can easily understand where Calvin is going to go with his idea of baptism and why it should be administered to infants. Now, the above is a very quick, shallow overview of Calvin's theology, anyone who wishes may flesh it out a bit more in the comments. However, I think that it will suffice for the discussion of baptism.

If you made it through the last post, you will notice that I quoted Calvin as saying this:

Therefore, let him who would fully learn the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature, not fix his thought upon the element and the physical appearance, but rather raise it to God's promises which are there offered to us, and to the inner mysteries which are represented in it (p. 1325).

Calvin wishes for you to forget about the sign for a moment and think of only the thing symbolized. We have already noted that what he believed baptism symbolizes: cleansing from sin, mortification (death) of the flesh, and rebirth into newness of life (cf. 1325).
From here, Calvin will move to circumcision. Watch out, it's a tricky move. Keep your eye on the birdie. This is a long quote but worth it for the studious. Try not to nod off:

Let us examine how these two signs (baptism and circumcision) differ from each other, and in what respects they are alike...the Lord covenants with Abraham that he should walk before him in uprightness and innocence of heart [Gen. 17:1]. This applies to mortification, or regeneration. And lest anyone be in doubt, Moses more clearly explains elsewhere, when exhorting the Israelite people to circumcise the foreskin of their heart for the Lord [Deut. 10:16], that circumcision is the sign of mortification...Moses declares that they ought to be circumcised in heart, explaining the true meaning of this carnal circumcision [Deut. 30:6]...We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the patriarchs in circumcision such as is given us in baptism, since it represented for them forgiveness of sins and mortification of flesh. Moreover, as we have taught that Christ is the foundation of baptism, in whom both of these reside, so it is also evident that he is the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all nations [Gen. 12:2-3]. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added (pgs. 1326-1327).

Did you follow that? Remember what Calvin said baptism symbolized? Cleansing, regeneration (rebirth), and mortification. If you compare that list to the above paragraph you will see that he believes circumcision meant the same thing to Israel. Same covenant, same thing symbolized.

So where are the differences he promised? The title of the next section should be a big tip-off. He entitled it: The difference is in externals only. In other words, if one peels back the signs and looks into the heart, you would see the same thing happening in the heart of a "born-again" Israelite that is happening in the heart of someone being saved in the Church. Calvin deftly took away the symbol of being dunked...err...sprinkled, and then he slid the sign of circumcision in on you while your eyes where closed.

I told you from the start that it was neat, tidy, and well thought out. It makes sense, doesn't it? The only problem is that, as neat as it is, it isn't true. I do not believe that circumcision and baptism symbolize the exact same things. I will continue with that thought next post. Hopefully, this will generate a bit of feedback from both sides.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Arm Wrestling With John Calvin

Let it be known by all who read here that I am, soteriologically speaking, a Calvinist. I mean that I agree with the TULIP outline. I did not necessarily learn this from Calvin, nor do I agree with all of what Calvin says, nor do I even particularly like him as an individual, but still I admire him and I believe that he was a brilliant thinker.

Baptists have historically had a frustrating relationship with the Reform movement. The wonderful London Baptist Confession of 1689 was born out of a desire to join in that movement while yet retaining baptistic distinctions. Then as now, the baptist 'movement' was hardly a lock-step group, and it must have been maddening for those who agreed with so much of what came from Luther and Calvin to see themselves lumped in with some of the nut cases that called themselves 'baptists'. Alas, this seems to be the perennial plight of the baptist, something that we have not overcome even to this day.

Above, I alluded to the fact that I may not like Calvin personally. You may be rightfully wondering how I can possibly dislike a man whom I never met. The answer is that I have read a good bit of the Institutes and his commentaries. Simply put, he is a jerk to baptists. I'm a little sensitive about that, not just because I happen to be one, but also because many of my friends are. Calvin would have run us out of Geneva on a rail if he could, so I can't help it if my affections are somewhat diminished for the man over it. I am still a work in progress, after all.

Let me now turn to the book that will be consuming most of my time for the next few weeks. That is the most wonderful book, The Institutes of the Christian Religion by none other than John Calvin. I will actually interact with the book. I will quote it and give you page numbers. Dear reader, I will even let you know which copy from which I am working! It is from The Library of Christian Classics Volume XXI, Calvin: The Institutes of the Christian Religion published by Westminster John Knox Press in Louisville & London, edited by John T. McNeill, and translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles. I got a sweet deal on these two volumes, and they are worthy every penny.

Our discussion begins in Chapter XVI which is under the category of "Means of Grace: Holy Catholic Church". The chapter title is "Infant Baptism Best Accords with Christ's Institution and the Nature of the Sign". As if those weren't fighting words enough for a Credo-Baptist, I want to give you a few more that get my dander up:

The attack on infant baptism

"But since in this age certain frantic spirits have grievously disturbed the church over infant baptism, and do not cease their agitation, I cannot refrain from adding an appendix here to restrain their mad ravings" (P. 1324).

Frantic spirits, eh? Mad ravings you say? Cannot refrain from adding an appendix, huh? Bring it on you emaciated baby sprinkling paedo-baptist!

Kidding aside, there is something in this ad homenem laced paragraph that I very much agree with. I could write it to about 15 million Baptists who are currently asleep at the theological wheel right now. He writes, "If this may perhaps seem too long to any man, let him, I pray, ponder with himself that, in such an important matter, we ought so to esteem purity of doctrine as well as the peace of the church that w must not fastidiously take exception to anything conducive to the achievement of both" (P. 1324). Amen to that. This will be one long post after another for me, and likely as not, no one will read it for that very reason. I care not. This is important to me, and if no one reads what follows, I have at least tried to be thorough and fair.

In the same paragraph, Calvin writes another sentence with which I wholeheartedly agree, "If (infant baptism) appears to have been contrive by the mere rashness of men, let us bid it farewell and measure the true observance of baptism by God's will alone" (P. 1325). Amen to that. And may I say that this goes likewise for the Credo-Baptist position. If I can be convinced of the validity of infant baptism, I shall join the Presbyterian Church at once and hope to become an elder there someday.

Continuing his discussion, Calvin will define what baptism means. This is of paramount importance in the discussion. If we cannot agree with him here, then we can hardly agree on anything. Surprisingly, I find myself in total agreement in his definition. He writes...and mark this well:

Let him who would fully learn the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature, not fix his thought up the element and the physical appearance, but rather raise it to God's promises which are there offered to us, and to the inner mysteries which are represented in it...Scripture declares that baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ's blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into fellowship with Christ (P. 1325)

I wonder, after reading this, why we can't just call it a day and all go home. I would nearly think that Calvin were a baptist himself after such a definition. Of course he isn't, but this is a good definition. Does any baptist reading this disagree with what is written so far?

The problem, I believe, is not just with Calvin's understanding of baptism, but with his understanding of circumcision. In order to make his system work, he is going to have to demonstrate that circumcision was done for the exact same reason that baptism is done. When he establishes that, then he will be able to conclude then that infants should be baptized just as they were circumcised under the Old Covenant. This is poor reasoning, I believe, and though we may be able to find elements in common, the two are not the same. They do not symbolize the same thing.

Go back and read his admonition to "not fix his thought upon the element and the physical appearance," this is crucial to his argument. He will attempt in the next few paragraphs to teach that the thing symbolized is exactly the same in both though the sign be different. That is, he will argue that circumcision was given to represent regeneration, cleansing by Christ, and the death of the flesh through belief in Jesus Christ. That is what the next post will be dedicated to. Let the reader judge to see if Calvin is correct. I will do my best to demonstrate that he isn't.

True Intellectualism and the Value of Scholarship

I am feeling much better today, and I thought that since every Greek nerd who comes through here is now offended at my last post I should clarify a few things. First of all, I am a Greek nerd. I had some pretty good Greek nerd professors also. I studied under Dr. David Black and Dr. Andreas Kostenberger. They are pretty sharp fellows.

In fact, I actually tested out of first year Greek. I am such a fan of the original languages that I spent a summer studying Greek on my own. That way, I could go ahead and take second year Greek right away. When Dr. Kostenberger found out I had done that without approval, he wasn't thrilled. He found out halfway through the semester somehow and called me to the front to discuss this with me. At the time, Dr. Kostenberger had a broken foot, so he walked with a limp. He's also from Austria, so he has a bit of an accent. He simply said, "Did you take the first year of Greek?" I said, "Uh...no...is that a problem? I have an A in here so far..."
He said, "Meet me in my office at 2. Bring your Greek Bible. Come alone."

Needless to say, I was frightened half to death. With the limp and the accent, he reminded me of a James Bond villian. I went in there expecting something like me saying, "Do you expect me to parse verbs, Dr. Kostenberger?" And him saying, "No Mr. Williams, I expect you to die!!" I passed his exam. So he let me stay in the class. He's no villain after all. Actually, he's quite a gracious man.

My point was not to scorn everyone who studies Greek. I think that all preachers should study Greek. What I despise is the use of Greek to belittle others or using it in such a way as to make the common man feel inadequate to read his Bible. I despise it when Greek students use the language like a 'secret knowledge' that only the elite can access, and therefore only they know the true meaning of the text.

I study the original text for my sermons, but I rarely, rarely let the people know that I have used it. If I find a translation or interpretation that I like better than the one I am reading from, then I can usually find a major, reliable English version to point them to. After all, the guys who translated the Bible were no slouches. The are almost never guilty of "mis-translation", but they may not have the interpretation that you like. That's where the bulk of the expositor's job comes in.

So relax O Greek guru. I love you and appreciate you. Keep parsing those verbs and figuring out those participles. Just watch the exegetical fallacies; someone will eventually call you on it. Oh yes, and if you ever start a sentence with, "What this really means in the Greek is...." you can rest assured that you are most likely going to say something redundant, silly, and conceited.

Pseudo-Intellectualism and the Scholastic Waste of Time

*Alert! This is a pet peeve rant from your Local Blogcasting System! This is only a rant. If this were a real emergency, you would be directed to your local Baptist Church for Shelter. Remember, this is only a rant.*

Sometimes, pseudo-scholarly individuals make me want to crack some skulls. I know that this is not necessarily a pastorly thing to do, but sometimes I think it may be appropriate. Okay, maybe if I flipped a few tables and scourged a few money lenders I might get some relief.

I will admit that I am no Greek scholar. However, I fancy that with my studies in Seminary and with my personal dedication to language and with my wonderful BibleWorks 6.0 program, I'm no imbecile either. I know enough to know when some fancy pants Greek scholar is trying to jerk the wool over my eyes, and that, dear friends, is worth the admission price to your local seminary.

Let me tell you what I mean. Take Romans 1:5 for example. In the NKJV, Paul writes, "Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations." This verse is huge in the grand scheme of things, and it is especially so here of late. But let me tell you where the local yokel Greek geek will try and mess with your non-Greek mind. Do you see the phrase "to the faith" in verse 5? Of course you do, I just wrote it. Well, "to the faith" is in the genitive case in the Greek...

Did your eyes just glaze over? Congratulations, so did about 99.9% of the folks who just read that. Most Christians couldn't tell a genitive from a gerund, yet they still manage to walk and talk and have children. Is it important that the phrase is in the genitive? You bet it is! Do you have to know Greek to get it? NO.

Here's what a genitive is: It can show possesion. Like if I say, "He's no son of mine!" Of mine is in the genitive. Got it? That is very basic, but it will be true most of the time. Sometimes it isn't, but most of the time it is.

Back to the Greek geek. After he has glazed your eyes with the very scary word "genitive", he may proceed to tell you that this particular genitive is an objective genitive or a genitive absolute. Okay...so what does that mean? Who knows? It's a snowscreen anyway. Do you know why it is a snowscreen? Because even a Greek speaking Jew from the first century would have to make a subjective decision on what kind of genitive it is, even if he knew what a genitive was, which he wouldn't because I do not even know if they had a word for genitive! After all, you use genitives all the time and most of us don't know what one is...did I make this point already? Good, let's move on.

Let me give you a phrase to clear things up:

"The love of Amy guards me against adultery."

Read it carefully...do you see the genitive? Yes!!! Brilliant! Now, let me ask you a question: Does this sentence mean that my love of Amy keeps me from adultery, or does it mean that Amy's love for me keeps me from adultery?

*Jeopardy Music for 30 Seconds*

Times up!

Guess what...both could be correct! You have no idea of knowing what I meant unless I clarify somewhere else. You'd have to ask, and I'd have to tell you. If you and a friend found this in a letter, you could argue all day over what I meant but it would be a stalemate. It could mean either.

So when Mr. FancyPantsNerdFaceGreekGeek tries to assert that he has the secret gnosis that no other living man has and asserts that it means one thing and that their is no ambiguity allowed in the phrase...tell him to shove off, especially if he is trying to deny Sola Fide. He gonna have to find some other non-Greeker to pick on. I feel strangely better now.

*Rant Over. You May Now Return to Your Regularly Scheduled Programming*

Preaching and Teaching With Fear and Trembling

I believe that one of the most underrated emotions is fear. For some reason, we have equated being afraid with cowardice and wimpiness. This is simply not the case, at least I certainly hope not. As I look over my ministry and my Christian walk, one of the primary motivators in my life is fear.

I confess to you that I preach and teach because I am afraid. I study my Bible because I am afraid. I pray because I am afraid. I often feel guilty that I haven't studied because I am afraid. What, you may ask, am I afraid of? I'm glad you were thinking that.

Imagine, if you will, a soldier standing on the rampart of a castle. His charge is to defend the keep, to the death if necessary. The armies of the enemy have surrounded his home and castle. They are a ruthless enemy who offers no quarter to survivors. Their one intention is to destroy, ruin, and obliterate the castle, the soldier, his family, and his way of life. The soldier knows this, as well as every woman and child who is huddled in the castle for protection.

Suddenly, the soldier sees a breech in the gate, and the enemy threatens to overwhelm the castle. How do you suppose that he feels? How would you feel?

If he charges headlong into the battle and fights valiantly to drive off the enemy, many may name him "Fearless". I think not. I believe that it is fear that drives him into the breech. Yes, he may fear losing his life, but if that causes him not to act then he is indeed a coward. But I believe the fear that drives men to such deeds is the fear of what will happen if they don't act. It is the fear of what will happen to the women and children if the enemy wins the field. It is the fear of what will happen to freedom and culture and home and all that they find good if they cower and do not act. How could they face the Lord of the Keep if they are found to be derelict in their duty?

This is why I preach and teach the way that I do. I do not wish to dissappoint the Lord of Heaven, and I fear for the souls of those who listen. This is why I cringe when TV Evangelists act absurdly. I do not cringe merely because I think they are idiots; I cringe because they are dangerous enemies who threaten to overwhelm the faith of many.

Of course, love drives me as well. It is what undergirds my fear. If I did not love the Lord or His people, I would not be afraid of shaming Him or seeing them harmed. This, I believe, is the difference between a servile, slavish fear and the fear that Scripture encourages. It is a fear born of love and awe, not of contempt and terror.

Bethlehem Baptist Withdraws Motion!! For Now...

It has been a marvelous day. First off, I learn that I am the recipient of the coveted "Most Improved Blog of 2005" by the noble Centuri0n, then as I am contemplating my next series on the Lord's Supper, I see this over at the Paleoevangelical's place. I began this series on Baptism and the Lord's Supper because the original proposal at Bethlehem Baptist upset me tremendously. I am glad to see that a few of the elders have changed their mind. I hope as they pray and put their heads together that more will change their minds as well, including John Piper and the majority of the staff.

Culture, Homosexuality, and the Christian Response: Getting Past the 'Yuck' Factor

It is my hope that this post will cause a few people to think about how they deal with people who are homosexuals. I do not believe that the evangelical response, by and large, has been a good witness. Perhaps. I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that our reversion to homosexuality has been more fleshly pride than godly grief. Here is what I mean.

In the West, and in the East, homosexuality has been a cultural taboo. This, I believe, is a sign of the common grace of God that has kept our culture from sexual debauchery. But common grace is not enough to bring someone to saving faith, and a reaction to a cultural taboo is not the same as a godly sorrow.

In our culture there are certain things that are deemed "disgusting" by virtue of our societies mannerisms. Belching at the table comes to mind. We may also find the custom of eating fresh monkey brains revolting, or cooking our food over cow dung, or etc. In other lands, these things may not only be acceptable but even encouraged! These are cultural issues, not Biblical ones.

Sometimes cultural taboos and biblical prohibition intersect. Such has been the case with homosexuality. It is clearly defined as sin in Scripture, and our culture has attached a 'yuck' factor to it. I would submit that the latter cultural factor is slowly being eroded, but the biblical prohibition will remain. Evangelicals can get mad about this, but there has already been an amazing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the public eye over the past thirty years that would have been undreamed of in the past. I think that this bodes well for evangelicals if they are mature in their faith.

I believe that as often as not, when an evangelical condemns homosexual behavior, it is because he or she is reacting to a cultural, perhaps natural response and not a godly conviction. This fleshly reaction is not compassionate or loving, but rather it is fleshly and hateful. This is the reaction of the beastly redneck drunkard and not the Spirit-filled disciple of Jesus Christ. The redneck farts, drinks himself into a drunken stupor, and picks fights for fun on a regular basis. He will sleep with any woman that he can dupe into a short-term relationship as often as he possibly can. Yet he will display the most extreme form of predjudice against homosexual conduct than anyone could imagine or muster. Would you say that this reaction is 'godly'? Would you encourage it? How should the Christian react differently?

I would submit that he is acting this way because his culture has taught him that homosexual behavior is disgusting, weak, and to be despised. It is not part of his cultural manhood to accept such behavior. So he would boast about beating up gay guys. By the way, this same redneck probably claims to be a Christian as well. His home church probably still has him on the active roll of the church membership and makes jokes when he comes to church.

Here is where the arrogance plays in for the Christian, and here is how we can recognize the rebellious redneck in all of us. First of all, if you think that you are less disgusting of a sinner than a homosexual you do not understand your own depravity. I do not have a problem with someone finding homosexuality repulsive for the right reasons. In fact, I applaud it. But I wonder why we do not treat divorce, adultery, thievery, and fornication with the same disdain? Why, o sinner, do you not act with revulsion when your own heart burns with lust towards someone of the opposite sex? Is this not appalling in the eyes of God? Why is it, O man, that the very fact that you know that you can be tempted by your neighbor's wife not enough to teach you that you are capable of the most horrific crimes of sexual debauchery?

Homosexuality should grieve us for reasons beyond the Yuck Factor. But I am afraid that is all the grief that the average evangelical can muster. Why is that? Because our view of sex has been so eroded, our view of marriage has been so dismantled, and that our eye has grown so lustful that the understanding of the sacredness and holiness of the marriage bed is not elevated high enough to teach us to grieve over the loss of innocence and purity. Not just a purity that comes from a legalistic abstinence, but an understanding that is born of the knowledge that the consumation of marriage is the closest model on God's earth to the relationship between Christ and His beloved. I would be willing to bet that the average teenager in America could not define the word 'chaste' other than to associate it with prudery and sexlessness. Chastity is not equal to virginity. A Christian wife who delights in the pleasures of sex with her husband is declared chaste by the Word of God (Check 1 Peter 3:1-8 and look for the word 'chaste' to see if I am telling the truth.)

When we react with an ungodly revulsion towards homosexuality, we hinder our witness and shame ourselves before the Lord. It is a prideful thing to believe oneself above even the most shameful sins. It is a poor understanding of depravity.

How then ought the Christian to react? I would submit that it should be with pity and hope. Pity because someone in that lifestyle is lost and missing the fulness of joy which God has promised. Hope because God can teach them yet how sex is meant to glorify Him, and that no one is beyond His grace or reach; you yourself are living proof of that. Finally, you must not be too harsh in your judgment. Apart from the grace of God, common or special, you may have woke up this morning in the bed with someone of the same sex. We have no room for boasting save in the mercy of our Lord. May God give us the grace to overcome pride that we may be the salt and light of the earth.

A Promise is a Promise

The Pilgrim commented in defense of our Presbyterian friends, and I am grateful. For starters, I want to look at the verse that he quoted in defense of infant baptism. Here it is:

For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself (Acts 2:39).

This verse comes at the end of Peter's great sermon at Pentecost. The question that this verse naturally raises is this: What is the promise? And secondly: How does it apply to the children of those who listened to Peter's sermon and believed?

Without quoting the sermon in its entirety, let me try to hit upon what I see at the 'highlights' of the sermon as far as the promise is concerned.

Peter says:

For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day (2:15).

Peter said this because those in the upper room had just been filled with the Holy Spirit and were now speaking in tongues to the congregation of Israel present in Jerusalem that day. Some men claimed that they were "full of sweet wine", that is, they accused them of drunkenness. This was not the case, so Peter begins with a defense of their behavior. That is, the followers of Jesus Christ are acting strangely because they are filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that has been promised to Israel from the days of old. He proceeds to quote for Joel to explain this heavenly phenomenon (cf. 17-21).

From this explanation, Peter moves on to explain that Jesus is the promised seed of David, the promised Messiah of Israel. He ends this section by saying:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified (vs. 36).

At these words, the people of Israel are pierced with conviction and ask Peter what they must do since they have murdered the promised Messiah. Peter replies by telling them:

Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself (2:38-39).

Hopefully now that we have taken a cursory look at this passage, I can make a claim as to what the promise to Israel and those far off actually is.

First, the promise that they are to look for is the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the climax of the New Covenant is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into the heart of the believer to the praise and glory of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Himself is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and He Himself is the focus of our worship and adoration, yet it is by the power and witness of the Holy Spirit that we are able to become the children of God. Christ bought our salvation; the Holy Spirit regenerates and applies that salvation to our hearts. Peter was excited on Pentecost because the coming of the Holy Spirit meant the ushering in of the Last Days.

The promise is for you who believe, and it is for your children. But the promise is neither guaranteed for you or your children apart from the saving faith which the Holy Spirit must impart. Do you believe that the promise of which Peter spoke was for every Jew in Jerusalem who heard this sermon? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that the promise was made in earnest to all, but not all would believe. No in the sense that the promise is not for those who would not/will not believe because belief is a condition of ratifying the promise.

Peter actually makes this easier for us. He specifically names who the promise is definitely for, that is, I believe he qualifies his earlier statement. He says, "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Is the promise for me? Yes, because he has called me to Himself. Is it for my son...yes, if the Lord calls him to Himself. I do not believe that Peter is using double-talk here; I believe that this is an important theological point. Let me clarify.

The promise of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit is for the whole world; I have no doubt of this. However, I have no doubt that only the elect will be saved by God. Does that mean that Jesus was not sent for the whole world? No. Does it mean that the whole world will be saved? No. Only those who believe will be saved, and only those whom God effectually calls will believe. There were elect people present that day, at least 3,000. And the promise was for their children as much as it was for the whole world, or as Peter says, "those who are far off." Ultimately, however, only the elect will really have the promise in reality.

So what does all this have to do with infant baptism? The theory is that baptizing infants makes a child a member of the covenant community and heir to the promise of God. Yet, they must admit that not every child of believers is saved. This means that God's promise is what...not coming true in certain instances? I do not believe that this is how a promise of God operates. Rather, I believe that Peter is promising that salvation is for those who believe, and for the children of those who believe, and for the pagan in Khazakstan, if they believe like the elect who were in Peter's original audience.

Is that simple or what?

So I Got Bored and Thought I'd Ramble...

My random thought fo the moment is that I miss old school Christmas songs. As a kid, I listened to Perry Como and Bing Crosby. By the way, I listened to actual records. Static filled, skippy, records. I miss the static and the skip and the crackling sound that a record makes when it finishes. I miss Bing Crosby and Perry Como. Christmas music is now so...so...not Perry Como!

I know that this is probably anathema to admit, but I can not find any "Christian" artist who has a decent Christmas album. I don't know if it is because I'm hooked on old school or what. It bothers me, honestly, because I know that Bing and Perry may not have been Christians at all. It seems like Steven Curtis Chapman or somebody could come up with something to rival the classics that those guys churned out. But in my estimation the modern generation couldn't touch those guys with a ten foot pole.

While I am grousing about music, you may have noted that I live in musical limbo anyway. That does not mean that I am anti-music. It means that the music of today seems to lack the depth, harmony, and beauty of generations gone by. The Christian music of today is, for the most part, lack-luster. This is probably primarily due to the proliferation of artists and the ability to make money. The medicore garbage doesn't get weeded out so well. Kind of like blogging...

Pretty much, this entire post is medicore, boring drivel. A lot like the contemporary Christmas music. It's familiar, not terrible, but decidedly ho-hum. I'm still waiting for a galliant presby to come to the defense of paedo-baptism so I can move on to the Lord's Supper.

Prayer Request

My wife had to undergo major surgery today. It went well, but please pray for her continued recovery.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper: What's in Symbol? Part 2 1/2

The ever capable Centuri0n left a comment that I want to deal with for moment. He wrote this:

I also think you mis-characterize the (viable) paedo position about baptism here, btw. They do not administer baptism to infants for the sake of what might happen: they administer the sacrament on the basis of God's promise to the children of believers.

I may be true that I was unfair to some in the paedo baptist camp, and that is not what I am going for here. I want to criticize, and hopefully demolish, your position, but I want to do it with the true position that you hold. Or else I want to be persuaded and join your church.

Let me examine the most important line of the Centuri0n's statement:

they administer the sacrament on the basis of God's promise to the children of believers.

Okay, what promise is it that they are hoping for? Did God promise that the children of believers would be saved? Is that why they baptize them? Does paedo-baptism help to accomplish this? Certainly the 'viable' position would not argue that He promised to regenerate them at baptism. So what are they hoping for?

Once that question is answered, I want to know what this makes baptism a symbol of. Is it a symbol of the parents' faith or the baptized baby's faith? Is it a symbol of promise hoped for or a promise fulfilled? (By that, I mean salvation.) Does it symbolize dying with Christ, being buried with Christ, and being resurrected with Christ, or does it symbolize preparation for that event?

Here is the heart of the matter: What is paedo-baptism symbolizing or doing? If it is administered on the basis of a promise that will (may?) come true, then they are doing something different in baptism than I am when I baptize. I hope that some of you out there will give some input to keep this discussion going.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper: What's in a Symbol? Part 2

You know that you are dealing with a difficult subject when you get tired before you even write the post. It is hard work doing theology, and if it isn't, then you probably aren't doing very good theology.

I said in my last post that the sign of the New Covenant is not baptism. I believe that's true; I believe that a cursory study of the Lord's Supper will reveal this. The question then becomes how baptism ties in with the New Covenant. That is what I will attempt to explore here in this post. Where we come out on this issue will largely determine how we view the nature of the Church, so pay attention and keep me honest.

I have argued that baptism symbolizes the fact that a believer has had an inward resurrection from the dead. The old nature has been put away, and the new nature has been brought out to life. Let me quote something from Paul that most who read this will be familiar with:

Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrectionRomans 6:3-5

I believe that baptism also symbolizes the fact that the believer is washed clean from sin. I further believer that this baptism is a symbol that a believer has been made a member of the body of Christ. This section of Romans implicitly contains all of these aspects about the new birth. However, paedo-baptism does not contain the most important aspect that baptism symbolizes: the death of the old man.

Look closely at what Paul says:
"we were buried with Him."

How is an infant buried with Jesus Christ? How does sprinkling convey the image of burial? (Not the main issue here, but as a rabid Baptist I must point out the obvious.) Also, does it follow that an infant who has been buried with Jesus should now walk in newness of life? It seems clear from this section that those who are buried with Jesus Christ will, without doubt, share in the likeness of His resurrection. This poses two problems for the infant baptizer:

1. Does baptism bring regeneration?
2. Does baptism guarantee rebirth?

The first is rejected by most anyone who has read thus far, and rightly so. The second is more tricky. And it is precisely here that the paedo-baptist tries to turn the tables on the credo-baptist because they cannot answer question 2. If I say that baptism is forbidden from infants because they are not reborn, they rejoin that I baptize people who are not reborn. I will grant this, but it does not pose the same problem for me theologically that it does for them, and here is why I believe that's true.

I believe that for baptism to be a valid expression, it has to symbolize something that has objectively taken place in the heart of a believer. Since baptism is a sign of spiritual rebirth, the sign is void if the reality behind it is non-existent. It would be as if I bought a family coat of arms for the Wallace family and paraded it around saying, "Look, Wallace's are strong, hardy, reliable, kilt-wearing, Scottish descendent folks. That makes me cool." Someone would well say, "Yes, if only you were a Wallace." Or, if I found your lost wedding band on the side of the road and said, "Boy, marriage is great. See my ring?" You would answer, "Yes, but a ring a marriage does not make." No rebirth; no baptism. To take the rebirth out of baptism is to take away the symbol of baptism altogether.

If you have not been reborn, you have not been washed. If you have not been reborn, you have not been united with Christ Jesus. If you have not been reborn, you have no portion in the Church. If you were baptized and you were not reborn, you put on a ring before the wedding.

This does not mean that an infant baptized person is not regenerate nor does it mean he isn't a member of the Church. It does mean that his baptism was no real baptism, and that it completely missed what baptism is a sign of in the first place. Next, I will try to tie this in with my view on the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper: What's in a Symbol? Part 1

Perhaps some of you have noted that I have recently become obsessed with the topic of baptism. You would be only partially right. It is not a recent obsession. It goes back a few years, actually around five. It was then that I first read what the Baptist Faith and Message states about baptism and the Lord's Supper. Recent events have only brought my old objections back to mind. Let me begin by giving you the quote of what the BFM states:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

That is the sum total of what the BFM has to say about baptism and the Lord's Supper. The obsession that I have with the ordinances was provoked because of the second paragraph. I cannot believe that the Lord's Supper is only given one sentence in the BFM. One sentence of the Lord's Supper! Our theology about the Lord's Supper is about as deep as the thimble from which we drink our grape juice.

When I think of a symbol, I think of something that represents something else. Something like the American flag. No, the American flag is not the United States, but it does represent us, and when someone mistreats one, it is a grand insult to Americans. At least, it is a grand insult to Americans who love this country and are proud of its heritage. A wedding ring is also symbolic. It is symbolic of the covenant made between a man and a woman who have vowed to love, honor, and cherish one another until death seperates them.

Without the symbolic attachment, the American flag is just some pretty cloth. It means nothing, and no one would care if you burned one like an oily rag. If you found a wedding ring on the roadside, it would be worth the going rate for gold to you, but that would be all.

The reason that the baptismal symbol is so special is not just for the sake of the act itself. Yes, the Lord is present. Yes, it is a special experience. But it is only special because of the meaning that our Lord put to it. Otherwise, it is no more special than when the bully down the block dunked you at the third grade swimming party.

Here is my point on baptism: It is the sign that regeneration has taken place in the heart of the believer; that he has been brought from death to life by the triumphant power of our Lord's resurrection. In fact, it is the same power that brought light into darkness that called our Lord from death to life. Paul prays that we will know "what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saint, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power twoard us who believe, according to the mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead" (Ephesians 1:18-20). Then Paul writes, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1). See the parallel? Jesus was dead, and by the mighty power of God He was made alive. He was resurrected. You were dead also, and by the mighty power of God, you were made alive. Jesus was raised and put over all things. You were raised and sit together with Christ in the heavenlies. Jesus was raised to display His glory; you were raised that He might show His glory in you. This is what baptism symbolizes.

The reason, dear reader, that baptism fails to be special is because the thing that it symbolizes is taken lightly. If you see a American flag burned, it may not stir your heart. If your wife has walked out the door after three years of marriage, you may toss your ring out the window. But if you love your country it should move you to see the symbol of your nation desecrated. If you love your wife then you will not only not toss your ring, but you would search and search until it was found if you lost it. The value of the ring far exceeds the cost of the metal that forms it.

I confess that my baptism did not mean as much to me when I was baptized as it does now that I have been walking with my Lord for several years. In truth, I did not love my wife on the day that I said my vows like I do today or I will in ten years, God willing. With every passing day I see more of her splendidness and the blessing that God has given me in her. Every day I see the miracle of the new birth more clearly, and I understand its grace with more pride-killing clarity.

This is why I wrangle over paedo-baptism. The symbol they have attached to it is wrong. It symbolizes what has happened, not what may happen. Is this mere sentimental attachment? In part. Just as I am "sentimentally' attached to grace. The sign of the new covenant, dear friends, is not baptism. The sign of the new covenant is the Lord's Supper. And that will require a post of its own.

Why Preachers Use Scare Tactics for Conversions

Though the point of my last post was that lost people are not truly church members, my lampooning of a certain type of hellfire and brimstone preaching struck a chord in some folks. I hate to see a preacher do that type of thing, but I completely understand why he does it. Let me share a few thoughts on why this sort of preaching goes on and why it is harmful.

Let me begin by saying that I do not think that preachers do this because they are sadistic, though some may be. I believe that it stems from a genuine concern for the souls of others. Pastors get into the pulpit week after week knowing that some of the people who attend every week are as lost as a ball in high weeds. (That's a good preacher saying, isn't it?) It is frustrating and it is burdensome. He has spoken to them about the gospel and the things of the Lord, and they have no real testimony, no desire for God, and are in over their head in the things of the world.

He feels responsible for these people, and maybe even just a little bit angry at them. They won't listen, and they are surely lost and going to hell. So, he preaches to them because he knows their out there. The tares will always grow up with the wheat, right? The wolves will prowl among the sheep. The only natural thing to do is for him to call them out. To preach hell so hot and scary that they'll come running down the aisle with fear and trembling. The scarier and the more awful he makes it, the better the affect.

The problem with this is at least two-fold. One is that it's like firing a shotgun haphazardly into a crowded room. He's not just hitting the reprobate; he's nailing the flock also. He shooting Christians who struggle with God's love; he's blasting Christians who struggle with guilt and law and faith and quiet time and unworthiness. They start feeling like they are the ones he is talking to. After all, they want to be good Christians. They wind up walking the aisle again and again, wracked with grief and doubt that they have "done" what it takes to be saved. Here is the check list:

1. Walk the aisle.
2. Ask Jesus into your heart.
3. Pray often...how often is often?
4. Read your Bible every day.
5. Get baptized.

The real problem behind this preaching is rotten theology. It is putrid and stinky and awful theology. It is ruinous to the listeners and it is murder on the heart of the pastor. The problem? He thinks that his description of hell and his power of persuasion is what gets the sinner down the aisle. Further, wrong preaching on hell is filthy pride at its core. The command to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling is equally applicable to the man delivering the message.

Can you imagine feeling responsible for someone's soul? That is, can you imagine that where someone spends eternity rests on your ability to make them understand their sinful condition? I would go mad if such were the case. I believe with all of my being that God is sovereign over the affairs of the heart. No man convinced me that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. I had heard the wildest hellfire and brimstone preaching you can imagine growing up. I got baptized as a scared little boy of around seven. I went to church, read my Bible, prayed every day, and I still did not know if the Bible was true. What happened? Did some scary evangelist get me? I happened to be sitting in my apartment at 2am when the Holy Spirit spoke life into my heart, when God caused the light to shine out of darkness in the face of Jesus Christ. I testify that this was a far more frightening experience than any evangelist, preacher, or pastor could dream of conjuring up.

This frees me to preach the truth without vindictiveness or pride. The gospel is God's gospel and salvation is from the Lord. The elect will be drawn like iron to a magnet under the preaching of God's Word, and the tares will sit obstinately and stubbornly by and not harken to the call of God. My call is the preach the Word; I preach it with passion and pleading and begging and exhortation and exultation, but I do not bring it thinking that the power of God comes through my wisdom or vain words. I preach for the love of God and the glory of the gospel. It is worship to my soul. To think that I would use to gospel to manipulate numbers and conversions is anathema! Abomination!

Those are my two cents on such prideful preaching. God save the pastor who believes he can affect the heart when only the Holy Spirit can.

Lost People in the Church: Absurd and Undiscerning?

Okay, I got a little carried away there in the last sentence of the last post. It happens sometimes when you are arguing with yourself and feel that you are clearly winning. (If you don't understand that, then you haven't lived in my head long enough.;p) So, that is a little strong. I'm backing off a bit.

Some of you reading this blog are baptists, and others of you aren't. Regardless of your association, you have probably heard this type of thing said in a sermon before:

"Are you sure that you're saved? Are you sure that you're sure? Are you really sure? You could be a tare! You could be a weed in God's beautiful garden! You know what happens to weeds and tares, don't you? That's right, they get pulled up and burned. Roasted forever over the hot coals of God's wrath! So you'd better be sure. You better not be one of those people who just walk down to the front and shook the preachers hand and repeated a prayer. You may have been a member of Sleepy Baptist for 50 years, but that don't mean you're saved! You'd better remember a time when you accepted Jesus or you'll probably burn in hell. Yep, I'm talking to people tonight who are going to burn because they think they are saved but aren't really saved."

Now, it is good for a preacher to exhort the people to make their calling and election sure. But that is not the hellfire and brimstone type of preaching that I want to do. (I have done some hellfire and brimstone preaching, you can check the sermon log at www.thirstysoul.org, but it's different than this.) What I don't want this church discussion to turn into is a witch hunt for 'fake' members.

I have no doubt in my mind that there are people who are 'members' of my local church, over which God has called me as overseer, who are lost. They don't attend; they bare no fruit; they are Easter/Christmas members. They aren't really members at all.

As a person who holds to the eternal security of the believer (or better yet, the perseverance of the saints), I have often been asked this question:

"You mean that if somebody gets saved then they can just go out and do whatever they want to and they'll still go to heaven?"

My typical response:

"No, if they live like that it indicates that they were never saved in the first place. You see, following Jesus Christ means that a person is changed..."

I would never say, "Yeah, they were saved, but they lost it."

That, to me, is analogous to saying, "Yeah, they were church members, but they weren't in the real church."

I have no problem saying that there are folks on our roll and folks who say they are saved and that say they are 'members' of our fellowship. It would seem that they are. But they aren't really members, are they?

I think the next baptism talk will revolve around how one becomes a member of the church. This is really where the rubber meets the road. And Pilgrim, if you are still reading, thanks for coming over. We need some Presbyterians around here to keep us straight.

Baptism Part 1: Are Unregenerate People "Members" of the Church?

Over at Centuri0n's the topic of baptism is raging on again. I, for one, am exceedingly glad for this, and if you have time, I suggest that you check some of it out. As many of you know, the topic of baptism is something that I have expressed concern over before.

How we understand baptism has great effect on how we understand the church, salvation, and discipleship. Recently, at least two prominent organizations have made decisions that have caused the ordinance of baptism to be front and center in discussion. One is the decision by Bethelehem Baptist, where John Piper is the pastor, to admit people into fellowship who have never been baptized. (Actually, they are letting people join who were baptized as infants, and if they believe that baptism to have been valid, then they need not be baptized again to join. As long as the baptism is not believed to be regenerative.) The second is the recent decision by the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention to deny appointment to missionaries who were not baptized in a church who believes in the eternal security of the believer.

The first question that I want to deal with is the nature of the church itself. I hope that you will see that where we land on the ordinance of baptism will ultimately reflect the nature and make-up of our churches.

Baptism is the "initiation" into the fellowship of the Church. It is a sign that a person has been buried with Christ, and is now resurrected to walk as a new person. There are three criteria for New Testament baptism that we never see exception to:

1. Baptism is by immersion.
2. Baptism must be proceeded by a confession of faith.
3. Baptism is administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Any baptism that does not live up to these criteria is not a New Testament baptism.

One of the problems that enters in is when point number two is denied. This point is denied by paedo-baptists, those who baptize infants. In a Presbyterian church, you have "church members" who are not born-again, regenerate Christians. They are not 'saved'. They have no profession of faith. And yet, it is insisted that they are somehow 'church members'.

Baptists have always believed in a regenerate church membership. Let me be clear in this: If you do not believe in a regenerate church membership, you are no baptist. That has been the hallmark of baptists from the beginning. We believe in a regenerate, baptized membership. And baptism is only valid post-conversion. This is the requisite for sitting at the Lord's table and enjoying communion, contra John Bunyan who denied this but lost the argument.

This, by no means, makes the local baptist church perfect. We baptize people all the time who violate the second criteria. That is, we baptize people who confess Jesus Christ with their lips but are not truly regenerate people. However, we do not do this on purpose, and if we detect wolves among the sheep they are placed under discipline. Even in this event we do not "kick them out" of the church, they simply cannot enjoy the benefits of Communion. We are not disciplining them because we know them to be unregenerate. They are still 'members', but not members in good standing.

We have some people in our churches in good standing who are lost, and there may be disciplined members who are saved. The former is no real member; the latter is. I have no way of knowing which is which, but that doesn't change the fact that one is truly a member of the church of God and one is not.

I do not believe that a person who makes a false profession, or no profession, is any more a member of the church than an illegal alien who sneaks into our country is an American. He may enjoy the benefits of our roads, educational system, our tax dollars, etc.; he may speak English and drive an automobile and love Mickey Mouse and football and apple pie, but he is no American. He is an infiltrator, and if discovered, he should be expelled.

The Centuri0n seems to be arguing that baptized false professors and infants belonging to paedo-baptists are somehow members of the visible or local church. I deny this. I believe that our fascination with church numbers and baptist rolls has contributed to this notion, but it is a fallacy. There are no tares in the church of God. If you are a tare, you are not in the church at all. One may be on the roll, and they may participate by driving the church van, cooking a green bean casserole, eating at the Lord's Supper, and even be baptized. But they are an infiltrator, a wolf among the sheep, a blemish on our love feasts.

I currently cannot except any definition of the church that allows lost people to be members. It is absurd, and it is undiscerning.

Together for the Gospel?

Out of curiousity, is anyone going to the Together for the Gospel in Louisville this year? I am making plans to attend, along with the Student Pastor of the church and our wives. It would be neat to meet a few folks who might be up that way.

Anger is a Faith Issue

On Sunday mornings I am preaching through Paul's letter to the Ephesian Church. (He did write it to the Ephesian church and not to ______ church, right scholars?) Last week we dealt with this verse:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger (Ephesians 4:26).

It is an unusual verse. In the construction, it appears that Paul commands us to be angry. Anger is normally portrayed as a destructive and bad thing throughout the Scriptures. James tells us that "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires" (James 1:20). Paul himself warns us of anger in 2 Corinthians 12:20 and in Galatians 5:20. Even here he tells us not to "let the sun go down" on our anger.

Surprisingly to some, not all anger is wicked. Some of it is good. Anger against injustice, slander, debauchery, pride, and etc. and not only good, they are healthy. Jesus Christ Himself was provoked to anger by obstinate behavior (cf. Mark 3:5). Many times in the Bible God is described as angry (cf. Deut. 9:20; 1 Kings 11:9; Joshua 7:10). So we cannot conclude that anger is always bad. However, I believe that we can conclude that anger is always dangerous.

When God gets angry, it is not safe for those against whom He directs His wrath. When God gets angry, He brings justice and grinds out wickedness. He punishes, and He delights to punish evil. But God is a perfect judge, and God knows when justice is served. He does not err in His anger. He does not hold grudges. We reflect God in that we have the capacity to be angry, but we do not have his perfect discernment, self-control, and everlasting love to temper our rage.

Anger is a gift to us. It is a gift given to incite us to act immediately against injustice. When we feel angry we are supposed to act righteously against what we perceive as an evil, and we are to proceed in humility, fearing our own culpability and our lack of love, justice, and ability to rightly judge.

It is also dangerous because when we are angry and ignore the injustice, we turn bitter. Anger is like a fire that consumes. It seethes to correct. If it is not properly channeled to evil, it will consume us with bitterness and hate. These are abominable evils that we must fight against. Do not let the sun go down on your anger. That means deal with it, one way or the other, before the end of the day. You are not allowed to let even "good" anger remain. Do not go to bed angry.

So how is anger dealt with? How do we keep it from corrupting us and defiling us? Faith in God as judge is how we let go of our anger. The first way to deal with anger is to deal with the situation through wisdom and grace and faith. If the situation is one that we cannot change, then we must throw ourselves on the justice of the all-seeing, all-knowing judge. Here is what I mean, and this is how I deal with anger.

There are those who have been horribly sinned against. You may be one of those. Someone has wronged you or a loved one. They may have stolen from you, falsely accused you, slandered your name, harmed a loved one...the list of ways for men and women to sin against one another is endless. You may be angry, and rightly so. But the ability to bring justice and peace to the situation is beyond your control. Here is your solution: Take it to the judge.

Here is where your faith must triumph, Christian. Do you honestly believe that God will punish sin completely, swiftly, fairly, and justly? I do. It is the only thing that keeps me sane. There are one of two ways that He does this:

1. The sinner will pay for their sin in this life and in the life to come.

I have counseled people who have been grievously harmed by the wickedness of others. I have counseled those who have been molested as children. People who have been slandered for doing right. I have counseled people whose reputations have literally been ruined by false accusation. It angers me. It makes my blood boil, and my heart cries out for justice. This is not wrong. It is right.

I take my case before the judge, and I counsel them to do so as well. I believe that no matter how terrible the sin, in the day of the Lord's visitation He will punish in such a way that even the one who is molested will be satisfied and say, "Justice is done." I believe that, and so my anger melts away. The judge will do what is right. He will punish the sinner.

2. He has poured out His wrath against that sin that angers you on His Son.

This opens the door for the ability to forgive even the most horrific crimes. Just as I have faith that God will punish the unrepentant wicked to the satisfaction of all who love truth, I believe that Jesus suffered terribly on behalf of the wicked who have believed. Can Jesus have suffered enough to satisfy a victim of abuse? Will they know the suffering of Messiah on behalf of a sinner to the extent that they will say, "It is enough! Justice is satisfied!" I believe that we will. That is why Paul goes on to say this to believers:

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:32).

There is freedom in knowing God the Just and Justifier. It is a freedom from bitterness and anger and frustration and worry and pain. It is freedom to sleep well, knowing that we are watched and cared for by a just and loving judge. He never sleeps or slumbers, and He will not overlook iniquity, and He will not rest until "justice roll(s) down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (Amos 5:24). How good and sweet that is to me; I pray that those of you today who have suffered at the hands of wickedness can find peace in the bosom of the Just God of Heaven.