Why Jesus? Part Three

When evaluating the authenticity of Christianity, it is important to examine subjective claims of individuals whose lives have been changed. When I was younger, I can remember hearing my dad tell about accepting Jesus Christ while he was in early twenties. In 1960's, like many other rebellious teenagers, my father naively joined the army to get away from his home so he didn't have to "obey so many rules." After his rude awakening to the real world, he found himself in Vietnam. Here he turned to drugs and alcohol to satisfy the empty longings of his soul. After he returned to the states, he continued to live an immoral lifestyle. But somehow, when he had reached his lowest point of hopelessness, he turned to Christianity for satisfaction. Due to the influence of several Christian relatives, my dad became a Christian. Today his life is radically different. Stories like this might not impress the skeptic, but somehow every time I heard my dad's testimony my confidence in Christianity is bolstered.

This is also evidenced in the history of early church. The conversation of two different skeptics greatly advanced Christianity in its infant stages. Before the death of Christ, Jesus' half-brother James had rejected the controversial claims of his older sibling. But after empty tomb, James changed his mind to embrace the new religion and he became an important leader in the Jerusalem church. In Acts 15, we see him presiding over the Jerusalem Council.

Where as James was a skeptical insider who was related to Christ, the second influential convert was an outsider to the early church. Paul (the Hellenistic equivalent of the name Saul) had been a zealous member of the Pharisees, a religious group that had been partly responsible for the death of Christ. Initially Paul tried to stomp out this new "heretical" sect of Judaism. And because of his religious beliefs, Paul intensely persecuted the early church. However, about five years after the death of Christ, Paul had an unusual experience that changed his life. On the way to Damascus to persecute the church, Paul had a vision of the risen Christ and apparently was blinded. After receiving back his sight, Paul went from being the church's greatest persecutor to its greatest evangelist. These changed lives were greatly responsible for the spread of this new religion.

Why Jesus? Part Two

The other night after youth group, one freshman student named Nate came up and asked me some questions. Nate is a fun-loving guy who loves to goof around. Most of the time it's hard to take him serious, but right away I could tell that he was serious. His questions were full of sincerity. He said, "Daniel, God seems to be just words to me. It just doesn't seem real. We talk about Jesus, but how do we know that it's true?" Nate realized that the validity of the Christian experience must rest on whether Christianity, as a belief system, is actually true.

The authenticity of Christianity stands or falls on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Who was this man? History tells us that Jesus was a controversial Jewish rabbi who proclaimed the coming kingdom of God. Although most of our information about Jesus comes from the four gospel accounts written by his followers, secular historians such as Tacitus and Josephus also mentioned him. Evidently Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of Caesar Augustus and then grew up in the small Galilean village of Nazareth.

According to the gospel writers, Jesus made some incredible claims that were unlike any other Jewish rabbi. He claimed to be able to forgive sins, something that only Yahweh could do. He also claimed to be the only way to Yahweh and to be one in essence with Yahweh. To the Jewish religious leaders, these claims were simply intolerable. Soon the conflict between the religious leaders and Jesus escalated beyond control.

Three years after the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the Jewish religious leaders began to plot his death. During the Passover, the religious leaders captured Jesus and presented him to the Roman governor Pilate. Although Pilate believed that Jesus was innocent of any real crime, he was also afraid of causing more turbulence in an already unstable region. So in order to preserve his political career, Pilate reluctantly consented to the religious leaders' demands. The Roman authorities then crucified Jesus on the hill of the skull, Golgotha, and buried him in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus' followers were completely dejected. As far as the Jewish religious leaders were concerned, they had hoped that the death of Jesus would mean the death of his following.

However, just the opposite occurred. Three days later, several women visited his tomb only to find an empty grave and later over 500 disciples reported to have seen him resurrected. The empty grave completely transformed the disciples from fearful mourners into bold emissaries willing to die for the risen Christ. Triumphantly his disciples soon spread the "gospel' that Jesus had physically rose again. The Christian message centers on this assertion.

Why Jesus?

Recently Justin, one of our 7th grade boys, asked me an excellent question. "If there are so many religions in the world today, how do we know that Christianity is true?" He told me that in his history class, his teacher brought up this very question. The teacher told them that he felt that each of these religions was equally valid. Justin had never considered Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam. How was he to know that he was right, and they were wrong?
At first glance, the thought that Christianity is the only true religion seems kind of arrogant, intolerant, and ethnocentric. It is much easier and much more emotionally comforting to believe that all religions are basically same and there are many equally valid ways of understanding life. After all, "all roads lead to Rome."
However, that simply is not true. All religions are not the same. In fact, each world religion has core convictions that are in absolute contradiction with other world religions. For instance, Buddhism is atheistic, while Christianity is monotheistic. Both cannot be right about that position. Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam believes that Jesus was just a prophet. They both can't be right. There are many other examples of major differences between world religions and they can't equally true. We just don't have that option.

Theology for Freshmen

Wow! The last few weeks I started a Bible study with four freshman guys from our youth group. These guys are awesome and they have a lot of questions about Christianity. We have been going over the typical catergories in systematic theology. So far we have studied bibliology, theology proper, and christology. This has been fun. I've just been using the doctrinal statement that I made for Bible college. We often get sidetracked quite a bit, but that's just fine. Next I think that we'll start some sort of a Bible survey.

Literally Speaking?

This last month I started a Bible study with a few of our high-school guys. All three are seniors and suffering badly from senioritis. They're just dying to get out of school and head off to college. So things have been fun. I figured that we would study hermeneutics in order that they would have a better idea of how to feed themselves spiritually as they go off to college.
Last night we talked about the different genres in Biblical literature. We spent quite a bit of time talking about apocalyptic literature. This genre is probably the most confusing in Scripture because of its frequent use of symbolic imagery. I've always tended to be leery of books like Revelation and Daniel since it seems like they often attract theological nuts.
Lately I've noticed the irony in the modern interpretation of prophetic books. The guys that claim to be taking prophesy "literally" are often the worst when it comes to actually allegorizing the text. They read about locusts in Rev. 9 and begin to talk about Apache helicopters. That just seems silly to me. I think that the major problem with these interpretations is that the interpretor fails to notice that books like Revelation were actually meant to be understood symbolically. Maybe that's the first step to studying this difficult genre.

Lucy is a dork.

Around Thanksgiving, Shelley talked me into getting a cat. We named her Lucy. It comes from the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The cat's pretty cute and fun to play, but I think that she gives my allegeries trouble. That's all good though. We like the cat.

Keep Holding On

This semester for Sr. High Sunday school, we've been looking at the book of Hebrews. Hebrews is a difficult epistle for many reasons, but mostly because so much of it is a mystery. We're not sure who wrote it or who it was written to. Yet even though the historical background of this letter is a puzzle, there is much that we can discern about the original audience.
Namely, they were hurting. Scared of losing their lives. They knew that they faced considerable opposition towards their faith in Christ. Many years ago they had already endured severe persecution and they were not sure that they could do it again. Some of their believing friends had already been arrested. They were afraid of allowing strangers into their community of faith. One slip might mean the death of the whole house church. Backing down from Christianity seemed to be the most reasonable option. Just a little compromise would alleviate the pressure.
In the midst of this crisis, the author of Hebrews, their friend and mentor, penned this letter of encouragement. He wanted them to know that Jesus is better than any other belief system. He wanted to strengthen them by telling them that Jesus, the author and perfector of their faith, had already been in their shoes. He had faced opposition, persecution, and even execution. Yet he didn't back down. He obeyed the Father. And now Jesus would give them the same courage, strength, and grace to hang on for the long haul.

My father-in-law's Taylor 

Ryan is Mullet-Man! 

Called by God

Traditionally, in Reformed circles, it has been popular to distinguish between the general call of God to salvation and the effectual call of God. Supposedly the general call is an invitation given to all (Matt. 22:14) while the effectual call of God to salvation is given only to the elect. In Calvinistic thought, this effectual call summons faith into existence in the same way that Lazarus was called forth from the grave. When God effectually calls someone to salvation, it always works. This differs from the general call in that it doesn't always work. Normally Reform theologians point to passages such as Romans 8:28-30 and 1 Cor. 1:24 as proof texts of this doctrine.

However, I would to like to suggest that we need to reconsider the meaning of the word "called" in these passages. As we know, good exegesis should not be tied down to our systematic theology. Rather, our theology should be based on our exegesis. The text should lead us to our theology and not the other way around.

So how does this influence our understanding of the word "called" in Romans 8:28-30? Well, we should start by noticing that, yes, this call is different from the general call talked about in Matt. 22. Unlike that call, this call always accomplishes its purpose. Notice the progression. "Those he called, he also justified. Those he justified, he also glorified." We also discern that this call is effective by the whole argument of Romans 8:28-30. Here Paul is explaining why we can be certain that God works all things together for our final good. If this call doesn't always work, then this certainity is rather shallow.

Now let's examine how Paul uses this word in Romans 9:25-26. He writes, "As he says in Hosea: 'I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,' and 'It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" In this passage, the word called describes the action of God giving someone a new identity. Here the word is synonymous with the word "named." In other words, God is going to call them by a new name.
Let's take this understanding back into Romans 8:28-30.

Based on the usage in Rom. 9, we should translated it: "To those he gave a new name, he also justified." This is why that call is always effective. So as least in Romans 8, Paul is not describing a summons to faith as described by traditional Reform theology. Rather, he is talking about God calling (or naming) those who were not his people "my people."

Shelley and her brother Chris 

What do you mean you can't see the pieces?  

The worst proposal ever.

This was the restaurant in Chicago where I proposed to Shelley. She was going to Moody Bible Institute and I went with my friends Andy and Janae to visit her. I had picked out a ring and told her to pick out a fancy restaurant. The problem was that before dinner we spent all day touring Chicago. By that evening, we were really tired and grumpy. The meal was nice and somehow I muttered out a proposal and she graciously accepted. Even though it didn't meet up to all our romantic expectations, she said yes. I guess that what matters.

From my brother-in-law Matt's trip

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1

Recently I have noticed a paradigm shift in my apologetic method. I used to believe that if I just presented someone with enough evidence for Christianity that they would just have to convert. After all, it is the most logical and reasonable thing to do. I viewed non-Christians as idiots, unintelligent morons who didn't see the facts clearly. Thus, my goal was to argue them into the kingdom.
However, I don't see things this way anymore. Why? Well, since then, I have happened to meet some really intelligent unbelievers--folks that are way smarter than me. And I began to notice that everyone to some extent is biased. We all are predisposed to some position due to our life experience. No one can be completely objective with the evidence for or against Christianity.
In fact, if Christianity is true, then the Bible teaches that sin has damaged our whole personality. This means that no one is completely reasonable, since even our cognitive facilities have been marred by sin. So we shouldn't expect people to become Christians simply because it is the "most intellectually satisfying position."
So how does this affect apologetics? Well, I have started to realize that although philosophical arguments and historical evidence are helpful in witnessing, no one becomes a Christian solely on this basis. Rather, most people become Christians because of a friendship, or because of their struggle with guilt, or because of that empty longing in their souls for something that nothing in this world can satisfy.

the battle

Recently, I've been reading Future Grace by John Piper. I'm really learning from his chapter on lust. In my own life, the struggle against lust is very real. I must continually guard myself against sexual temptation.
In Matt. 5, Jesus gives a severe warning against lust. He says, "You have heard that is was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Let's stop here for a moment. This is often quoted in discussions on lust, but we normally stop here. We usually forget about the next part. "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Now that's radical. Jesus warns us that eternity is at stake here. In other words, lust can eternally destroy your soul.
At first, this gave me trouble because it seems to be contrary to other passages in the Bible that teach that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. However, Piper helped me to connect these two thoughts. Lust is basically a faith issue. Do I really believe God's promise of eternal life? Do I live for heaven, a superior satisfaction? Or am I like Esau who traded his inheritance for a bowl of soup? In other words, lust offers temporary satisfaction, while Christ offers eternal pleasure.
The other day I was listening to an online sermon by Ravi Zacharias, when suddenly something he said jumped out at me. He said, "Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart, we are really not battling intellectual ideas as much as we are fighting for the right of our own sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences?"
Let me put it another way. Unbelief is not primarily an intellectual problem; rather, it is a moral problem. People refuse to believe in Christ because that would hold them morally accountable. They want to be their own god. They don't want any boundaries to be placed around their sexual passions. So the subconscious mind, consumed with lust, fights furiously against faith. This means that if we genuinely want to know God, we must kill sexual sin. We need to be willing to maim ourselves for the kingdom.

Due to the influence of my friend Levi, who's also a youth pastor, I decided to start a blog. It might help me keep track of my thoughts and it sounds kind of fun. However, I have no idea where to start. I'm into theology and philosophy. And I write theology papers for fun. I know that that's sorta nerdy, but I can't help but think about God most of the time and wonder what life's all about.