Posts

Posted on

What is Your Definition of Truth?

John 14

1“Don’t be troubled. You trust God, now trust in me. 2There are many rooms in my Father’s home, and I am going to prepare a place for you. If this were not so, I would tell you plainly. 3When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4And you know where I am going and how to get there.”

5“No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We haven’t any idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

(John 14:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What is truth?

I think the best way of defining truth is “that which corresponds to reality.”

We live in a time and culture where many people are not too concerned with truth, especially as it relates to religious beliefs.

The predominant view regarding religion today is that of pluralism, the idea that there is no ONE right view or true religion. Most people think that whatever works best for you is good for you. If you think about it, this totally fits our postmodern culture.

Postmodernism is a reaction or a rejection to the philosophy of modernism, which is also known as naturalism. While naturalism emphasized logic and repeated observation and experience to arrive at truth (seen most notably in modern science and the scientific method), postmodernism emphasizes one’s own experience as the basis for truth.

Hence, for most people, there is not ONE truth, but there can be many truths, because truth is whatever your experience tells you it is.

Enter Jesus in John 14. Jesus is interacting with his disciples shortly before he is arrested and crucified. In preparing his disciples for what they will soon encounter with his death, resurrection and ascension, he tells them that he’s going to prepare a place for them. He also tells them that they know the way to get to where he’s going.

The disciples are confused. “We don’t know where you’re going….so how could we know how to get there?”

In typical fashion, the disciples are perplexed because Jesus is talking about a spiritual reality while the disciples are thinking only about the physical reality they’re currently in.

Jesus’ response to his disciples is profound and has far-reaching implications. He says:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

Jesus uses three separate terms to describe himself:

I am the way – Jesus defines himself as THE way, not “a” way. In our diverse world of religious pluralism, Jesus does not describe himself as one alternative path among many. Jesus is not an option that suits some people while Buddha, Mohammad or Confucius might be more preferable for others. Jesus is not a preference. Jesus is THE option.

I am the truth – Jesus says that he is THE truth. If truth is that which corresponds to reality, then Jesus is saying that he is the ultimate reality. His life and His words accurately depict what is real. What this means is that Jesus’ words are not mere suggestions to consider. Instead, they are the basis of reality for everyone, not just those people who prefer Jesus over some other religious leader or humanistic ideology.

I am the life – Jesus also describes himself as THE LIFE. Jesus is not just a way to experience a better life as if he is a self-help guru. He is the source of all life itself. John says this about Jesus in the introductory words of his gospel:

He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. (John 1:3-4, NLT)

Perhaps you have heard the analogy that getting to God is like a trek to the top of a mountain. While God is at the top, there are many routes that one might traverse in order to get to the top and reach God.

This analogy adequately illustrates what many believe today. God is whatever or however you might define him and your path to getting to him is whatever path you might choose to take.

Jesus stands in stark contrast to this way of thinking. God is not whatever or whomever you might want him to be. Making God out to be whoever you might prefer him to be is what the Bible calls idol worship and it’s an egregious sin. Israel’s engagement in idol worship is a main theme in the Old Testament and was the primary reason for their punishment and exile at the hands of foregien powers. (See my blog posts “Are You an Idol Worshiper” and “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols”).

Jesus says that if you want to get to God the Father, you MUST go through Him. Contrary to what our modern day religious pluralism says, Jesus IS the only way. Jesus can make that claim because He’s the only one who has made a valid payment for sin. No other religious leader or ideology even offers a solution to the problem of sin before a holy God. Jesus is the only one who does, and therefore, His claims are exclusive.

Christianity does not fit well in today’s religious pluralistic culture because it makes exclusive claims about God and salvation. Jesus himself claimed to be the ONLY way to God and this view was supported by his disciples and the New Testament writings (see my blog post “Is Christianity an Exclusive Religion?“)

We live in a pluralistic society and as a result, we’re tolerant of others and their views and beliefs. However, tolerance is not truth. Tolerance says that we respect the rights of others to hold views and beliefs that are different than ours. It doesn’t mean that we agree that their views are right. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Jesus is truth. His words are truth. He is the only one who has paid the price for sin and therefore, He indeed is the only way to get to God.

Reflection

How would you define truth?

What is your response to those who say all religions are basically the same? How would you go about distinguishing Christianity from other religions and ideologies?

How do you respond to those who object to Christianity’s exclusive claims? 

Do you think that Christianity is intolerant because it teaches that there is only ONE way to reach God? Why or why not? How do you define tolerance?

 

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Posted on

Is God Against Interracial Marriages?

Deuteronomy 7

1“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. 2When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them, and don’t let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. 4They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. 5Instead, you must break down their pagan altars and shatter their sacred pillars. Cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols. 6For you are a holy people, who belong to the LORD your God. Of all the people on earth, the LORD your God has chosen you to be his own special treasure. (Deuteronomy 7:1-6, NLT)

Ezra 9

1But then the Jewish leaders came to me and said, “Many of the people of Israel, and even some of the priests and Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the other peoples living in the land. They have taken up the detestable practices of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites. 2For the men of Israel have married women from these people and have taken them as wives for their sons. So the holy race has become polluted by these mixed marriages. To make matters worse, the officials and leaders are some of the worst offenders.”

3When I heard this, I tore my clothing, pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat down utterly shocked. 4Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel came and sat with me because of this unfaithfulness of his people. And I sat there utterly appalled until the time of the evening sacrifice.

5At the time of the sacrifice, I stood up from where I had sat in mourning with my clothes torn. I fell to my knees, lifted my hands to the LORD my God. 6I prayed, “O my God, I am utterly ashamed; I blush to lift up my face to you. For our sins are piled higher than our heads, and our guilt has reached to the heavens. 7Our whole history has been one of great sin. That is why we and our kings and our priests have been at the mercy of the pagan kings of the land. We have been killed, captured, robbed, and disgraced, just as we are today.

8“But now we have been given a brief moment of grace, for the LORD our God has allowed a few of us to survive as a remnant. He has given us security in this holy place. Our God has brightened our eyes and granted us some relief from our slavery. 9For we were slaves, but in his unfailing love our God did not abandon us in our slavery. Instead, he caused the kings of Persia to treat us favorably. He revived us so that we were able to rebuild the Temple of our God and repair its ruins. He has given us a protective wall in Judah and Jerusalem.

10“And now, O our God, what can we say after all of this? For once again we have ignored your commands! 11Your servants the prophets warned us that the land we would possess was totally defiled by the detestable practices of the people living there. From one end to the other, the land is filled with corruption. 12You told us not to let our daughters marry their sons, and not to let our sons marry their daughters, and not to help those nations in any way. You promised that if we avoided these things, we would become a prosperous nation. You promised that we would enjoy the good produce of the land and leave this prosperity to our children as an inheritance forever.

13“Now we are being punished because of our wickedness and our great guilt. But we have actually been punished far less than we deserve, for you, our God, have allowed some of us to survive as a remnant. 14But now we are again breaking your commands and intermarrying with people who do these detestable things. Surely your anger will destroy us until even this little remnant no longer survives. 15O LORD, God of Israel, you are just. We stand before you in our guilt as nothing but an escaped remnant, though in such a condition none of us can stand in your presence.” (Ezra 9:1-15, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What does the Bible say about interracial marriage? Is God against it?

Some have argued that God’s design was for the races to remain pure and as a result, God prohibits interracial marriages. The Bible has been used by some in the past to promote the view that interracial marriages are wrong and against God’s design.

In America for example, some states prohibited interracial marriages as recently as 1967. Biblical passages have often been cited in support of this view.

Interracial Marriage in the United States

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Virginia. Richard was a white man and Mildred was ethnically mixed with Black and Native heritage. 

Virginia law at the time prohibited interracial cohabitation so Richard and Mildred were arrested and given a choice – either go to prison or leave the state of Virginia. They chose to leave Virginia.

However, they challenged the legality of Virginia’s law and their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which, in a landmark 1967 ruling, declared that laws against inter-racial marriages were unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th amendment. (Taken from an article on NPR.org) 

In my reading today, I read these two different passages from Deuteronomy and Ezra that amazingly, talked about the same issue within the nation of Israel – God’s prohibition of mixed marriages.

These passages, at first glance, seem to argue that God does indeed prohibit mixed marriage, or interracial marriage. For example, Deuteronomy 7:2,-3 says:

2When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them, and don’t let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters.

Ezra 9:2 appears even stronger in its denunciation of mixed marriages:

2For the men of Israel have married women from these people and have taken them as wives for their sons. So the holy race has become polluted by these mixed marriages. To make matters worse, the officials and leaders are some of the worst offenders.”

In our modern culture, to see any kind of prohibition that would forbid a person from marrying another person who happens to be from a different race or culture seems inconceivably wrong. Our modern moral convictions view this as extraordinarily racist and unjust.

So what is going on here? Why would God prohibit mixed marriages for the nation of Israel? Why would God punish those who married someone of a different race? Isn’t that racist?

When looking at these passages in full context, it’s clear that the reason God commands His people not to intermarry with those from other nations, is NOT because they are different racially, but because they are different ideologically and theologically. In other words, God does indeed want his people to remain pure, but in their understanding of Him, their devotion to Him and their worship of Him, not in their genetic progeny.

If we read just one verse further in the Deuteronomy passage, this is made clear. He tells the Israelites NOT to intermarry with the people they are displacing and destroying because:

4They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. (Deuteronomy 7:4)

The Ezra passage expounds on this even further:

11Your servants the prophets warned us that the land we would possess was totally defiled by the detestable practices of the people living there. From one end to the other, the land is filled with corruption. 12You told us not to let our daughters marry their sons, and not to let our sons marry their daughters, and not to help those nations in any way. You promised that if we avoided these things, we would become a prosperous nation….for you, our God, have allowed some of us to survive as a remnant. 14But now we are again breaking your commands and intermarrying with people who do these detestable things. (Ezra 9:11-12, 13b-14, NLT)

The reason God told the Israelites NOT to intermarry with the people from the other nations is because those people did not share the same views about God. They worshiped other gods. They were not believers in Yahweh and they engaged in detestable practices that God abhors.

It is an undeniable truth that when two people marry, over time, they tend to compromise on their different views, whether it’s politically or religiously. People who are married begin to influence their partner in the ways that they think and in the things that they value. This is sometimes good but often it can be negative.

In this case, God is warning His people not to intermarry with those of other nations because in doing so, the result is that they would undoubtedly be led astray spiritually. Over time, their worldview would change and their religious practices would shift in order to accommodate their spouse.

This is why Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV) says that we are not to be “unequally yoked with unbelievers.”

The admonition is not to avoid marrying a person of another race, but to avoid marrying a person who does not share the same views and devotion to God.

Reflection

What do you think it means when God says He wants to maintain the purity of His people? What does purity look like?

What do you think are some of the reasons why people might say interracial marriages are wrong?

If you are married, what are some examples of ways that you have influenced your spouse’s views and what are some ways your spouse has influenced your views?

What examples can you think of (from the Bible or your personal experience) that demonstrate the dangers in marrying someone who does not share your same spiritual views and values?

What examples can you think of from the Bible that might support the idea that God is not against interracial marriages?

 

Photo by Désirée Fawn on Unsplash

Posted on

Political Divisions Within Church

1 Corinthians 1

10Now, dear brothers and sisters, I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won’t be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.” 13Can Christ be divided into pieces?

Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16(Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, there is a lot of political division in our country these days. And this political division has seeped into the church.

Perhaps it’s always been there. But with the advent of social media, it’s definitely more pervasive and widespread.

The first letter from Paul to the Corinthians was written in part to address the problem of divisions in the church. I wrote my thoughts on this passage a few years ago in my blog post “Name Dropping in the Early Church“. Members of the church in Corinth were aligning themselves with different church leaders, which was causing conflicts and divisions in the church.

Certainly, there is no problem with following certain pastors and religious leaders. The problem comes when we elevate those figures to celebrity status and begin to idolize them or place them on a pedestal, where they may take precedence over even Jesus himself.

As I re-read this passage recently, it occurred to me that perhaps the biggest source of division within the church today is political divisions. People within the church are aligning themselves with certain political figures and ideologies, which is causing major divisions within the global church.

These last 8-10 years in the United States have been a breeding ground for the enemy to sow hatred, divisiveness and discord among Jesus’ followers.

It’s become apparent that for many who call themselves Christ followers, their political party and candidate of choice is more important than Jesus himself. This heightened commitment to politicians and political parties  is driving their behaviors and greatly influencing their views of others and even their understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

It’s been amazing to me to see people who claim to be followers of Jesus, belittling others, bullying others and berating others who don’t share their love and devotion for a particular candidate or political party.

For example, I’ve seen people on various social media platforms who have made the statement, “I don’t see how you can be a Christian and vote for                                . ” I’ve also seen “Christians” claim that God hates candidate “X” while other “Christians” have rebutted that God actually hates candidate “Y”.

Ironically, Christians on both sides, in defending their preferred candidate and ideology, are appealing to the need to “love” people, all while demonstrating hate towards those who disagree with them.

Let me be clear. It is not unbiblical to have a preferred candidate or a preferred political party. But when we place those candidates and parties above Jesus himself, and when we’re incapable of basic civility towards those with whom we disagree, we’ve unwittingly made an idol out of our political identity.

Paul, in this passage, has some words of wisdom for us. Was Donald Trump crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris? Christ did not send us to promote the Democratic or the Republican party platforms BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL.

It’s apparent that we all have different ideas about how to solve the problems that we face as a nation and as a culture. While it’s ok to promote our views, as Christians, NOTHING should take precedence over Jesus and the gospel message. To do so could become idol worship or worse, the promotion of a false gospel.

Reflection

What steps do you think Christians can take to ensure that they don’t promote politics over Jesus?

Do you think it’s possible to be a Christian and also be heavily involved in politics?

What would you say to someone who says that a certain political party is the only party a “true” Christian could support?

How do you reconcile the different political views with the gospel message? What do you think is the proper way to integrate our political views with the gospel message?

 

Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/two-people-standing-face-to-face-10350693/

Posted on

Is the Old Testament God a Bloodthirsty, Genocidal Psychopath?

Psalm 106

34Israel failed to destroy the nations in the land,

as the LORD had told them to.

35Instead, they mingled among the pagans

and adopted their evil customs.

36They worshiped their idols,

and this led to their downfall.

37They even sacrificed their sons

and their daughters to the demons.

38They shed innocent blood,

the blood of their sons and daughters.

By sacrificing them to the idols of Canaan,

they polluted the land with murder.

39They defiled themselves by their evil deeds,

and their love of idols was adultery in the LORD’s sight.

40That is why the LORD’s anger burned against his people,

and he abhorred his own special possession.

41He handed them over to pagan nations,

and those who hated them ruled over them.

42Their enemies crushed them

and brought them under their cruel power.

43Again and again he delivered them,

but they continued to rebel against him,

and they were finally destroyed by their sin.

44Even so, he pitied them in their distress

and listened to their cries.

45He remembered his covenant with them

and relented because of his unfailing love.

46He even caused their captors

to treat them with kindness.

47O LORD our God, save us!

Gather us back from among the nations,

so we can thank your holy name

and rejoice and praise you.

48Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel,

from everlasting to everlasting!

Let all the people say, “Amen!”

Praise the LORD!

(Psalm 106:34-48, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever heard someone question the morality of God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament?

Perhaps you (or someone you know) have wondered if the Bible is actually describing two different gods, since God as He is depicted in the Old Testament seems so different than how He is portrayed in the New Testament in the person of Jesus.

Some might go so far as to deny the God of the Old Testament, using words like “blood-thirsty”, “genocidal” and even “psychopathic” to describe His behavior.

In a previous blog post entitled “Is the God of the Old Testament Petty“, I wrote about how some people view the Old Testament God as petty or jealous.

The bottom line is that many people simply cannot reconcile the actions of God in the Old Testament with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. How is it possible, the reasoning goes, that Jesus could teach about the need to love others while the God of the Old Testament routinely wipes out whole cultures and whimsically punishes people for no apparent reason? That doesn’t seem very loving. Ergo, many simply dismiss the Old Testament entirely since it paints a picture of God that is inconsistent with their view and understanding of who they think God is or should be.

The primary reason that people cannot reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament (Jesus) is because they have created a caricature of each that is based on limited information and a false understanding of God’s nature.

These caricatures often set up the Old Testament God as being a bloodthirsty God of vengeance while depicting Jesus as mild-mannered and universally accepting of all peoples. It’s no wonder people are confused. Both versions and understandings of God are wrong and incomplete.

Regarding the God of the Old Testament, here are a few things people don’t often recognize:

First, God expelled the people who inhabited the land that Israel occupied because they were extremely wicked. This Psalm passage says that they even sacrificed their sons and daughters to the idols of Canaan. The land was desecrated and they defiled themselves.

Should God not bring punishment on the wicked?

The Israelites ultimately adopted the same wicked practices of the people they displaced, and despite God’s numerous warnings, their lack of repentance led to the same fate – punishment.

The second thing people don’t realize about the Old Testament is that the events portrayed extend out over a span of thousands of years. Yes, there is judgment, but it is not the constant rampage that people have depicted, as if God is out of control and in a continual fit of rage.

The Old Testament God is actually quite patient and reserved, if you think about the time frame related to the events. Over, and over and over and over again, God warns his people about impending judgment and punishment that will come as a result of their sin and wickedness. He provides many, many, many opportunities over years and years and years for them to humble themselves and repent. And yet, he doesn’t just talk a big talk. He delivers on his promised retribution.

The perception of Jesus, however, is that he doesn’t exhibit any of the out-of-control jealousy and rage that the Old Testament God does. Jesus is seemingly patient and kind, without a mean bone in his body. Jesus is often seen as someone who exhibits the pacifism of Ghandi, the esoteric teachings and pithy proverbs of Buddha and the generous giving spirit of Santa Claus, all at once.

But this caricature of Jesus is also false and incomplete.

Jesus affirmed the teachings of the Old Testament as being the authoritative words of God (see John 5:39, Matthew 5:17 and Luke 24:44-46). Additionally, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and referenced many of the stories as if they were real. There is no indication that Jesus disputed any of the stories, writings or teachings of the Old Testament. If Jesus is so different than the God of the Old Testament, in terms of their nature and purpose, wouldn’t we expect Jesus to note that? Shouldn’t we expect that Jesus would point out the flaws in the Old Testament version of God and demonstrate where and how He is superior? He doesn’t.

In addition, the idea that Jesus is a kind, grandfatherly figure who never utters a harsh word is also false. Jesus had many harsh words, particularly for the religious elites of the day. Jesus demonstrated kindness and gentleness to those who were humble and those who were in despair, but for those who were arrogant and thought of themselves as sinless, Jesus often took a different tone – one of rebuke.

Jesus came to the earth to offer humanity the opportunity to partake in the kingdom of God, which required Him to go to the cross and secure payment for the sins of the world. It is clear that Jesus’ first advent was not as judge, but as a prophet and priest.

However, Jesus himself acknowledged and taught that He would come again, but this time, He would be coming as a conquering king, bringing judgment to the world. This is most clear in his extended discourse on the future in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, but also in Revelation 19:11-21, which depicts Jesus on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind him as he defeats his enemies.

Jesus is in perfect alignment with God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament. He claimed to be sent from the Father and He also affirmed their unity of purpose.

Much more could be said to demonstrate this but that is beyond the scope of this limited blog post.

Suffice it to say, the idea that the God of the Old Testament is a vile, evil, rageaholic, while Jesus is Mr. Rogers on steroids is a false caricature that is based on limited information and personal preferences rather than an accurate reading and understanding of the Biblical texts.

Reflection

How would you respond to someone who says the God of the Old Testament is a different god than Jesus?

How have you reconciled in your heart and mind the differences in the Old Testament depiction of God and the New Testament portrayal of Jesus?

In what ways do you think your views and understanding of God might be deficient or incomplete? 

What steps do you think you and others can take to reconcile the supposed differences between the God of the Old Testament and the person of Jesus?

 

Image created by Grok-2 Ai generator on X.com

Posted on

Is it Unbiblical to Teach That Salvation is About “Accepting Jesus”?

John 1

10But although the world was made through him, the world didn’t recognize him when he came. 11Even in his own land and among his own people, he was not accepted. 12But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan—this rebirth comes from God. (John 1:10-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

I’ve been a Christian for a long time and ever since I can remember, I was told that becoming a Christian, or getting “saved” was simply a matter of “accepting” Jesus into your heart.

Not too long ago, I saw the above photo from one of my Facebook friends who regularly shows up in my feed. I respect Voddie Baucham as a teacher so I was curious about the context of the quote that seems to indicate that the idea of “accepting Jesus” is unbiblical.

Is it true that the New Testament nowhere mentions salvation being about “accepting Jesus”?

I think the short answer to that is NO.

John 1:12 is the most clear verse that would challenge that assertion as John states:

But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. [emphasis added]

Now to be fair, my Scripture reference is from the New Living Translation (NLT) which is the only translation I’m aware of that uses the phrase “accepted him.” Most other translations, including the NIV, King James, NASB, ESV and others, all use the phrase “received him“. So I suppose it’s possible, if you exclude the NLT, that one could argue that the Bible doesn’t say anything about “accepting Jesus” when it comes to salvation.

In my mind, though, this could be considered theological nit-picking. It seems apparent to me that the words “accept” and “receive” are synonyms. So why make the argument that salvation has nothing to do with “accepting Jesus”?

Honestly, I could not find a link to the sermon in which Dr. Baucham made the quoted statement, so it’s hard to know exactly what he’s getting at or why he felt compelled to make the statement in the first place.

The problem sometimes with sound-bite quotes is that you don’t always get the context and so the quote can appear to be saying something entirely different than what the author was really intending to communicate.

I can say, however, that in my many years of ministry, this is not the first time I have heard someone make a statement like this. So I’ll address the statement as I’ve heard it shared from others, not necessarily from Dr. Baucham’s perspective, which, as I’ve stated, I was not able to clearly determine.

In my experience, the argument that salvation is not about just “accepting Jesus” is often made by those who are seeking to address the problem of spiritual mediocrity within the church.

An overwhelming number of people claim to be Christians and yet, as we look around at the landscape of our culture, it’s hard to imagine that there are really that many people who legitimately ARE Christians. In other words, the lifestyles of most people do not seem to indicate that most people are indeed Christians.

So what is the problem?

Some people would argue that a major problem is in our evangelistic message – that we are not calling people to repentance but instead, we’re peddling a soft message that requires little to no commitment. Note that Dr. Baucham’s quote appeals to the need to “repent and believe.”

The argument is that if we tell people that salvation is simply a matter of “accepting Jesus” into their life, we’re giving them the impression that being saved is merely a verbal transaction where, if we say the right words, and “ask Jesus into our hearts”, we can escape the punishment of hell and then go on our merry way doing whatever we were doing.

This kind of approach, the argument goes, lacks commitment and ultimately is not transformational. Instead of producing mature believers whose lives reflect Jesus, it produces worldly people who think of themselves as Christians simply because they said “the sinner’s prayer.”

The oft-suggested solution to this perceived problem is to refrain from telling people that salvation is about “accepting Jesus” and instead, communicate that it’s about a higher level of commitment that requires repentance.

As I see it, there are two problems with this solution.

The first problem is that the idea of “accepting Jesus” logically includes the idea of repentance.

Repentance literally means to turn and change direction. One cannot legitimately accept Jesus while maintaining the view that they can earn their salvation through their own good works.

Accepting Jesus is NOT just saying some prescribed prayer. It requires an attitude of humility that recognizes we fall short because of our sin and that Jesus is the ONLY one who can offer forgiveness through His shed blood on the cross.

Accepting Jesus, or receiving Christ, means that we accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers to all people. How do we do this? Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we do this by faith.

What that means is that I literally change direction (repentance). Instead of my former course where I trusted in my own good works to earn God’s favor, I now choose a new course, where I place my trust in Jesus alone to provide forgiveness and to save me from the penalty of my sins.

There’s a second problem with the solution of saying we should refrain from saying that salvation is about “accepting Jesus”. The second problem is that even if we were to stop talking about “accepting Jesus” and even if we were to convince everyone to use the different language of “repent and believe” in our evangelistic presentations, there is no reason to believe that the outcome would be any different than it already is.

The reason for this is because spiritual mediocrity in the church is largely a reflection of the hearts of people rather than the specific wording of the evangelistic messages that are being promoted.  Mark 4 tells us that there are 4 different soils that represent the different heart attitudes of people who hear the message of the gospel. (See my blog post: Which Soil Are You?)

Sharing a message of “Repent and Believe” to a person who has a hard heart, rocky heart or thorny heart is likely to yield the same result as sharing a message of “Accept Jesus”. Regardless of the specific verbiage of your message, the outcome will be the same, because it is already determined by the heart condition of the hearer.

Please note that I’m not saying that our evangelistic message and approach doesn’t matter. Our message should be biblically correct. However, the idea that one biblical approach  will produce better results than another, equally biblical approach is wishful thinking and places too much emphasis on the sower for the results.

There is no silver bullet message or approach that will guarantee the hearer will become a fruitful Christian.

In addition, since we know that spiritual mediocrity among professing believers has been a problem since the outset of the church, it stands to reason that it’s an issue of discipleship more than evangelism. The issue was addressed repeatedly in the New Testament and has been a source of controversy for 2000 years. We’re not likely to see a change in this phenomenon, though we should certainly do our best to disciple believers to maturity, just as the apostles did.

(See my blog post: Why Some Christians Never Grow)

The most important thing we can do when communicating with a non-Christian is to give a clear and understandable explanation of what Jesus is offering. (See my blog post: What Does it Look Like to Follow Jesus?)

I think it’s clear that linking salvation to the idea of “accepting Jesus” is not unbiblical, as long as we help the hearer understand that accepting Jesus involves repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus as our one and only Savior.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of the idea that people must “accept Jesus” in order to be saved? What are they accepting?

What do you think are the main reasons why some Christians don’t grow? How should we change our evangelistic approach to ensure greater fruitfulness among believers?

Do you agree with the statement by the author of this blog that mediocrity among professing Christians is more a result of discipleship than evangelism? What are your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing?

How can we disciple others to greater levels of maturity and fruitfulness? What steps can be taken? What resources do you think are needed?

 

Photo is a screenshot from a Facebook post at Voddie Baucham’s Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10221114209364128&set=a.1532880861226)

Posted on

What is Your Definition of Good?

NOTE: This is an excerpt from a longer blog post “You’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good, baby, you’re no good!” which makes observations from the longer passage of Romans 3:21-28

Romans 3

23For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 

(Romans 3:23, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Back in the day there was a popular song by Linda Ronstadt with a chorus that said, “you’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good, baby, you’re no good”! (see Ronstadt YouTube video here)

It’s doubtful that Ronstadt (or whoever actually wrote the song) had Romans 3 in mind when they penned the words, but this chorus is actually the sentiment of Paul’s message in Romans 3.

Paul has spent the first 2 chapters of Romans outlining how the pagan, the moral person and even the religious person are all sinful and therefore under God’s judgment.

In this chapter, Paul finalizes his argument that all people are no good. It’s doubtful that he could bust out the lyrics as soulfully as Ronstadt but Paul’s message is essentially, “you’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good….baby you’re no good.”

Perhaps you disagree with this assessment. After all, a lot of people think that people are basically good. And many would argue that at least SOME people are good. So how can Paul say ALL people are NO GOOD?

It all comes down to how you define good. We (people) tend to define good in relative standards that make us look good and feel good about ourselves.

For example, if Hitler is the standard of bad, then I feel good about myself because I’m reasonably confident that I’m a better person than Hitler.

And that’s the problem. Everybody is using a different standard of goodness and each person’s standard tends to be derived in such a way that they themselves end up on the good end of the spectrum.

Is this not blatantly obvious? How many people would actually say they are no good? Very few, in my experience. Even the most hardened criminal is likely to point to someone whom they believe to be a worse person than they are as their comparison for measuring and evaluating goodness.

But God’s standard of goodness is different than ours. God doesn’t use Hitler or Stalin or any other authoritarian tyrant as the standard for what is good. God uses HIMSELF as the standard of goodness.

With God as the standard of goodness, we can see that being good requires us to be as good as God is, which is impossible. This is why Paul says in verse 23 that “all fall short of God’s glorious standard” and it explains how Paul can say that ALL are NO GOOD!

Reflection

What has been your standard for measuring goodness?

How does your definition of goodness compare or contrast with what the Bible says about goodness?

Photo by Volkan Olmez on Unsplash

Posted on

Early Christianity and the Role of Women

Luke 24

1But very early on Sunday morning the women came to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2They found that the stone covering the entrance had been rolled aside. 3So they went in, but they couldn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4They were puzzled, trying to think what could have happened to it. Suddenly, two men appeared to them, clothed in dazzling robes. 5The women were terrified and bowed low before them. Then the men asked, “Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?”

8Then they remembered that he had said this. 9So they rushed back to tell his eleven disciples—and everyone else—what had happened. 10The women who went to the tomb were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and several others. They told the apostles what had happened, 11but the story sounded like nonsense, so they didn’t believe it. 12However, Peter ran to the tomb to look. Stooping, he peered in and saw the empty linen wrappings; then he went home again, wondering what had happened. (Luke 24:1-12, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this last chapter of the gospel of Luke, the good doctor gives his account of the empty tomb.

It’s fascinating to consider some of the details of his account, which yields several interesting (at least to me) observations.

First of all, this chapter stands as a powerful defense against the argument that the resurrection is a fabricated event. For if the resurrection never happened, but you were determined to concoct a story for the purpose of gaining some kind of power and influence over others, you would never construct the story in such a way that the first people to discover the empty tomb were women.

The truth is that women in that culture did not have the same power, authority or voice to create the kind of instant credibility that would have been necessary to get people to believe your false narrative.

In other words, the most probable reason that Luke shares the details he does, in which a group of women are the first ones on the scene to discover the empty tomb, and in which these same women are the ones to deliver the message of Jesus’ resurrection to the eleven disciples, is because that is exactly how the events happened.

Secondly, the angel’s response to the women leads to an interesting conclusion about the role women played in the ministry of Jesus.

If you’re like me, you tend to think of Jesus roaming around teaching, preaching, healing and performing miracles among the masses, all with a small band of 12 men at his side.

The reality is that Jesus had a lot more than 12 men who followed him. More than that, the group of Jesus-followers was not exclusively men. The angel’s response confirms this. The angel questions the women:

“Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?” (Luke 24:6, 7)

Did you catch that?

The angel reminds them of something Jesus had taught regarding his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. Clearly, the women cannot be reminded of something UNLESS they were there when it was originally taught.

This just underscores an often overlooked detail of Jesus’ ministry and the make-up of his cast of followers. They weren’t all men! There were most assuredly women, some of whom are mentioned in this encounter with the angel at the empty tomb. In fact, not only were there a number of women among Jesus’ followers, but according to Luke 8:1-3, many of these women were supporting Jesus and his disciples through their own resources.

It’s easy for some to dismiss the validity and authority of Scripture because of a dissatisfaction with how women in the Ancient Near East culture were portrayed. However, there is no denying that Jesus substantially elevated the role and prominence of women relative to the culture of the time. Not only were women among some of His most devoted followers but it is women, not men, who initially discover the empty tomb and announce the resurrected Jesus to the rest of His followers.

Reflection

How would you go about defending the resurrection to someone who disputed it?

What do you think is the reason why women were the first ones to discover the empty tomb?

What are some of the issues in the Bible that challenge your belief that it is God-inspired?

What difference does it make to you to know that women were part of Jesus’ followers and were exposed to his teaching, healing and miracles, just as the 12 disciples were? In what ways does this change or impact your understanding of Jesus and the role women play in ministry?

 

Image by Ken Williams from Pixabay

Posted on

Can a Psalm Refute Buddhism?

Psalm 94

1O LORD, the God to whom vengeance belongs,

O God of vengeance, let your glorious justice be seen!

2Arise, O judge of the earth.

Sentence the proud to the penalties they deserve.

3How long, O LORD?

How long will the wicked be allowed to gloat?

4Hear their arrogance!

How these evildoers boast!

5They oppress your people, LORD,

hurting those you love.

6They kill widows and foreigners

and murder orphans.

7“The LORD isn’t looking,” they say,

“and besides, the God of Israel doesn’t care.”

8Think again, you fools!

When will you finally catch on?

9Is the one who made your ears deaf?

Is the one who formed your eyes blind?

10He punishes the nations—won’t he also punish you?

He knows everything—doesn’t he also know what you are doing?

11The LORD knows people’s thoughts,

that they are worthless!

12Happy are those whom you discipline, LORD,

and those whom you teach from your law.

13You give them relief from troubled times

until a pit is dug for the wicked.

14The LORD will not reject his people;

he will not abandon his own special possession.

15Judgment will come again for the righteous,

and those who are upright will have a reward.

16Who will protect me from the wicked?

Who will stand up for me against evildoers?

17Unless the LORD had helped me,

I would soon have died.

18I cried out, “I’m slipping!”

and your unfailing love, O LORD, supported me.

19When doubts filled my mind,

your comfort gave me renewed hope and cheer.

20Can unjust leaders claim that God is on their side—

leaders who permit injustice by their laws?

21They attack the righteous

and condemn the innocent to death.

22But the LORD is my fortress;

my God is a mighty rock where I can hide.

23God will make the sins of evil people fall back upon them.

He will destroy them for their sins.

The LORD our God will destroy them.

(Psalm 94:1-23, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Psalm 94 is a cry and appeal to God for justice.

Apparently, there were evil people taking advantage of others and they appeared to be getting away with it.

Why is there no justice?

How long will we have to wait to see the wicked punished?

These are the questions the psalmist is asking.

Some things never change. We’re still asking those same questions today because there’s no doubt that evil still exists and that evil doers often seem to go unpunished.

There are two different ways of dealing with this perceived injustice:

The first way is to say God must not exist. This is the argument the atheist makes and it’s highlighted in verse 7:

7“The LORD isn’t looking,” they say,

“and besides, the God of Israel doesn’t care.”

The atheist uses the reality of evil as a primary argument against the existence of God. I wrote about this in my blog post “Does the Existence of Evil Disprove God” based on Psalm 75.

The atheist’s line of reasoning goes something like this:

If God exists, He would care about evil and He would do something about it (presumably, He would eliminate it). Since evil still exists, either God doesn’t care OR He’s unaware of it. Either way, God must not exist.

Verse 7 focuses on the premise that God doesn’t care about evil or He’s unaware of it. The conclusion is that God must not exist.

The second approach to the fact that evil exists and evil doers often go unpunished is to recognize that God will deal with justice in His timing. This is the approach the psalmist takes:

He punishes the nations—won’t he also punish you? (verse 10)

Judgment will come again for the righteous. (verse 15)

God will make the sins of evil people fall back upon them. He will destroy them for their sins. The LORD our God will destroy them. (verse 23)

The psalmist is not happy that evil doers seem to go unpunished, but He does not so quickly conclude that God must not exist.

You may be saying to yourself, “this is all well and good, but what does this have to do with refuting Buddhism.”

That’s a good question. This psalm says nothing about Buddhism, which would not even come into existence as a religious ideology for another 500 years after the writer penned this psalm.

So what’s the connection?

In December of 2023, I read a post on X.com from Nancy Pearcey (@NancyRPearcey), who had made a benign post quoting a section from the book “The Rise of Christianity“ by Rodny Stark. The quoted section was highlighting how Christianity introduced a revolutionary new ethic of love that was unique amongst religious ideologies of the time.

A person replied to the post questioning the idea that Christianity came up with anything that new or revolutionary. The poster claimed that Buddhism, and other Eastern philosophies had been preaching universal love for centuries.

This sparked an exchange regarding some of the principles of Buddhism and how it fails as a religion and philosophy to adequately explain reality.

You can trace the whole exchange here  (which I highly encourage), but the exchange connects with Psalm 94 in this way:

Pearcey was explaining that Buddhism, like any religion or philosophy, has to be evaluated on its ability to adequately explain reality.

The point was made that in Buddhism, ultimate reality is not a personal being but an impersonal essence or force. Because WE are personal beings, Buddhism has no way of adequately accounting for where humans came from.

This psalm actually refutes Buddhism in verse 9, which says:

Is the one who made your ears deaf? Is the one who formed your eyes blind?

The principle is that the creator must have the same capabilities as that which is created. How could something that could not hear or see create something with ears to hear and eyes to see?

Since we are personal beings, whoever, or whatever created us must also be personal. Since Buddhism does not teach or believe in a personal creator, it cannot adequately explain our existence. In the Buddhist system, an impersonal force or essence somehow produces humanity – personal beings. This defies logic.

The psalmist has no knowledge of Buddhism, which would not exist for another 500 years. But the psalmist is aware of the skeptics’ argument that denies God. He calls the skeptic a fool (verse 8) and offers up the simple apologetic proof for God’s existence in verse 9.

This one-verse proof demonstrates that God must be personal. And since Buddhism denies a personal creator, Psalm 94:9 actually refutes Buddhism.

Reflection

When thinking about the fact that evil exists and evil doers do not always face timely justice, which of the two approaches are you most likely to take – to deny God’s existence, or realize that justice will eventually come in God’s timing? Explain your choice.

What convinces you most that God exists? 

How do you explain the existence of evil to those who are skeptical about the existence of God?

What is your reaction to Psalm 94:9 and the apologetic argument that because WE are personal beings, God must also be personal because the created thing cannot be greater than that which created it? Is this argument convincing to you? Why or why not?

 

Photo by RKTKN on Unsplash

Posted on

The Nashville Redemption

It was the spring of 2014 and Jen and I were just entering a new phase of ministry. After 25 years with college students as our primary focus, we made a pivot to reach Millennials, the largest age group in our culture, but the least churched.

Our first time in Nashville (2014) included the Q conference. We only got half of the first day in before Jen ended up in the hospital. A highlight of that session was an interview with Carrie Underwood and her husband, NHL Hockey player Mike Fisher.

We flew to Nashville to spend some time with about a dozen other Cru staff members who were also committed to reaching this underserved audience. On the heels of our staff time, we were slated to attend the Q conference (led by Gabe Lyons – now rebranded as ThinQ Media) and we were looking forward to meeting with one of our former students from our time at the University of Arizona who had transplanted his family to the Nashville area.

On the first day of that conference, Jen experienced some chest pains that ultimately landed her at Vanderbilt hospital. 

I wrote about that experience in our April 2014 newsletter, which you can access here (bit.ly/LWDN0414).

We left Nashville feeling grateful that we had dodged a bullet. When we arrived at the hospital we didn’t know what was going on. We were relieved when the doctors told us that they thought Jen had walking pneumonia and gave her antibiotics to help clear up any infection. 

Cru Embark staff enjoying good BBQ in downtown Nashville

It turned out though that that diagnosis was wrong, and this was just the first phase of a medical journey we entered, and are still in. 

Thankfully, we know a lot more about Jen’s condition, vasculitis, which is currently in remission.

This last fall, I had the opportunity to return to Nashville for the first time since that ordeal. Jen was not able to make this trip due to a conflict with her class schedule.

Once again, a fledgling group of Cru staff met to discuss and dream about reaching the under-served audience that is Young Adults.

It was great being back in Nashville and experiencing a bit of the culture, including good BBQ and some great music from talented artists.

We were treated to a small intimate, unplugged acoustic set from American Idol season 8 winner, Kris Allen

Me with Kris Allen – American Idol Season 8 winner

We were surprised by one of our Cru staff who lives and ministers in Nashville and happens to live just around the corner from Kris Allen (of American Idol Fame) who did an acoustic set for us on our colleague’s back porch! That feels very Nashville-y!

Meeting up with my friend Mark, a former student from way back during our University of Arizona days. This meet-up was 10 years overdue!

As much as I enjoyed connecting with our staff and revisiting and renewing my vision for Young Adults, the highlight of my trip was my time after the conference. 

I decided to delay my return so that I might meet with my friend Mark, the former student we had to cancel on 10 years earlier.

In addition, another friend from our church in South Orange County had moved his family to Nashville 4 years ago and my trip provided an opportunity to connect with him as well.

I was able to connect with a friend (Rob) from our church in SoCal who moved his family to the Nashville area a few years ago

It was great to pray together and have extended time to connect on a deeper level and hear how God is moving and working in the lives of these two families. 

As I reflected back on my time in Nashville, I realized that the number of Cru staff who are reaching Young Adults is still rather small.

What really stood out to me though is that the make-up of the staff in attendance was different. I was the only person at these recent meetings who had been at the Nashville meeting 10 years ago. That is often the nature of ministry. People often come and go and move on to other opportunities and other callings. For us, at this time, Young Adults remains our calling.

We are grateful for your investment and commitment to us!

 

To read the pdf version of our newsletter, click here.

Posted on

How Do You Prepare for God’s Final Exam?

1 John 5

11And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12So whoever has God’s Son has life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life.

13I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When I was in college, on the last day of instruction for every class I ever took, someone would ask the professor what was going to be on the final exam.

It makes sense. Everyone wants to know what is going to be tested so they can adequately prepare for the test. Can you imagine not having any idea how the instructor was going to evaluate your knowledge and progress?

Nobody studies for a test by just guessing what will be covered on the exam and how they will be evaluated. It’s actually quite foolish.

And yet, this is exactly how many people approach life.

According to Pew Research in December 2023, over 70% of Americans believe in an afterlife, while over 60% of Americans believe in hell.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/)

How exactly though does one determine whether they will go to heaven or hell?

In my many years of ministry, I have engaged with thousands of people regarding issues of spirituality and the afterlife. When asking people the question of whether they think they will go to heaven when they die, I found that most people think they will make it. But when asked the follow-up question of how God decides who makes it into heaven and who doesn’t, most people aren’t quite sure.

It’s interesting to me that most people aren’t sure how God decides who makes it into heaven, but they’re fairly certain that they will make it to heaven.

This is because people overwhelmingly believe that getting into heaven is a matter of being a good person and most people think of themselves as good.

But is this how God evaluates a person’s eternal destination – their goodness? And if so, what is the threshold of “good” that is needed? What kind of goodness score must one get in order to pass the test and make it into heaven? How would a person even evaluate their own level of goodness?

You would never study for a final without knowing what is going to be on the test and how your grade is going to be tabulated, but concerning one’s eternal destiny, which is a far more important outcome than your grade in a class, many people simply guess and make assumptions about how God evaluates them.

Fortunately for us, we don’t have to guess how God evaluates eligibility to enter heaven. He doesn’t make us wonder what His standards are. Here in 1 John 5, He tells us quite explicitly how He decides. In fact, we’re told that we can KNOW for certain whether we have eternal life or not.

What is the standard? It’s not what most people think. It’s not goodness, which is really just a subjective spectrum that most people have erected in such a way that no matter what bad things they have done, they think of themselves as good.

According to this passage, eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. Those who have Jesus have eternal life. Those who do NOT have Jesus don’t have eternal life.

This standard is actually a lot easier to evaluate than some subjective idea of goodness. You either have the Son or you don’t. If you have the Son, John tells us that you can KNOW that you have eternal life. You can be 100% certain.

But if you don’t have the Son, you can be 100% certain that you don’t have eternal life.

The question for us then is how do we get the Son? Stay tuned.

Reflection

Do you believe there is an afterlife? What does the afterlife look like? What is the source of your information about the afterlife?

How do you define goodness? What makes a person “good”? How do you think God defines goodness? How good do you think a person needs to be to make it into heaven and live with God for eternity?

If you were to die tonight, how sure are you (on a scale of 0-100%) that you would make it into heaven and live with God for eternity? How would you rate your chances?

This passage says that eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. How do you think a person can “have” the Son? What do you think is involved in getting the Son and having eternal life?

 

Photo by RDNE Stock project: https://www.pexels.com/photo/teacher-proctoring-his-students-during-an-examination-7092593/