Original Sin

This is a question I received with my response.

QUESTION-

I would like to know what your position is on the doctrine of original sin and how we are guilty of Adam's sin. I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism. So it would be impossible to fight against it, unless some force outside of us frees us from this curse. I do not see that we are guilty of sin until the moment we sin, but we are bound to sin as having the virus of sin, at some point it will manifest. So I don't see that we are guilty of birth, but heirs of a nature with the incubated virus. but that does not make us sinners until the moment we actually commit sin, only at that moment are we guilty and responsible for what we practice. I see that unless someone dies as a newborn, they will sin. I would like to know your thoughts on this.

RESPONSE-

Your question is a good one! The doctrine of Original Sin is an important doctrine in the history of the Christian faith. However, there is substantial variety in the understanding of the doctrine by the major Christian denominations, and in fact, the doctrine is not even universally held. The underlying assumption that seems to be present in your question and analogy of virus transmission, is the understanding of imputed sin nature. As you state in your question, "I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism."  This understanding is akin (although not identical) to the view historically held by many in Western Christianity whereby we inherit the sin nature from Adam's commission of the first sin in the Garden as well as Adam's guilt for his sin. In this view, most prominently proposed by Augustine, humanity cannot not sin, it is inevitable. This is similar to your view I think, although you disavow the personal guilt aspect. Additionally, Augustine would have been favorable toward your virus analogy as he felt that original sin was passed along biologically. However, in Eastern Christianity, a "softer" view prevails whereas the doctrine is seen more along the lines of our environment that has been tainted. Adam and Eve sinned, thereby tainting our environment, and to some degree our nature in that now we experience death, creating a context that we inherit in which we are now more likely to commit personal sin. In Eastern Orthodoxy, one would say that we all inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the personal guilt. 

It is important to note that this doctrine is not typically considered a core or essential doctrine, meaning it is not required to believe in the doctrine or a particular version of the doctrine, to be considered a Christian. This is an in-house debate that is important, but not essential to the core gospel. What is core to the gospel is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "... there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). But the idea of the human race inheriting the original sin and guilt of Adam in some fashion is not an essential.

Dr. William Lane Craig has written and spoken fairly extensively on this topic. I particularly commend his "Defender Series"/Doctrine of Man on the topic to you and one of his answers to a previous "Question of the Week" - links to both are below. May God bless you richly Luis and thank you for reaching out!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s10
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/original-sin/

God's Sovereignty

This is a question sent to me and my response.

QUESTION-

"I am a Pentecostal Christian. At times, I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life. Why not? I know He is sovereign, but yet He doesn't take control of situations. I love a very deep answer please."

RESPONSE-

I am a bit confused by the way your question is worded so I will need to make an assumption on what you are really asking. What's confusing is that you say, "Why not?" immediately after the phrase, "I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life."  What you seem to be asking in context though is, why is it that God sometimes seems passive in a Christian's life? Even though we know he is sovereign over all creation, why does he not "take control of the situation"? I will assume your "why not?" question applies to, why does God not take control of the situation. So I apologize if I have misunderstood the intent of your question.

The key to the answer is found in your very question when you say, "I know he is sovereign". Yes, he is sovereign! We know this from scripture. "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases (Ps 115:3)  "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Is 46:10)  "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dn 4:35) "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Ac 2:23) "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Ro 8:28)  "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Ep 1:11) and I could go on and on! Scripture clearly reveals and proclaims the absolute sovereignty of God, meaning that he alone has the ability to do all that he desires, to accomplish all his purposes.

However, that in no way implies that he will intervene in our individual situations in a manner that we would prefer. Not at all! In fact, God's sovereignty means that he will accomplish *his* purposes completely and perfectly and that means allowing or ensuring our situations play out just as they do! If we truly believe God is sovereign over all things then it includes our lives and situations. God knows you perfectly. He knows your current situation perfectly and he knows every future event perfectly. Part of God's sovereignty is that perfect knowledge which includes what is often called "middle knowledge". God's middle knowledge means that God not only knows the beginning situation perfectly (i.e. the "now"), and the end (i.e. the future) perfectly, but he also knows everything in the middle perfectly. He knows what decisions you would make given any possible situation you could face in the world that God himself created and arranged. This is how God works all things together for your good and for his glory. This is referred to as God's providence and is what scripture clearly teaches. Therefore, far from passive, God is intimately active in every event and every situation such that Paul could make that amazing claim in Romans 8:28 - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."  So we must be careful not to confuse situations and outcomes that don't please us with God being passive! This is where Christian faith comes into play. As the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 11 by reminding us of the great heroes of faith. God made promises to them. But their life situations appeared not to be coming out as God promised. God appeared to not be giving Abraham the land he promised for example. But Abraham believed God, trusted in God's goodness and his sovereign purposes, and that was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. So it is with everyone who follows God. He wants us to trust him and believe in his goodness and sovereign purposes that, while it might appear God is not actively fulfilling his promises in our lives, he is indeed working all things together for our good and his glory! This is the essence of faith, what it means to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Co 5:7).

Russell, I hope this helps and may God richly bless you!

God and Morality - The Divine Command Theory

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"As I understand it, you are a defender of the Divine Command Theory, that is, the idea that morality comes from what God commands. I heard an argument against said theory that I can't seem to get around. I would like to know your thoughts. The argument stems from the fact that there are verse in the Bible where god commands evil things. For example, in Deuteronomy chapter 13 verses 13-16 he says "that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt" In that verse, God commands the slaughter and total destruction of a town because they do not believe in God, and he says to do this "as a... offering to the Lord" This verse as well as other verses would certainly offend our moral sensibilities. The argument, then, is that because of this verse and others like it you can not get morality from the Bible. Let me explain. When confronted with this kind of verse, one has two options. One is that that kind of verse is not an expression of God's will, and one that it is. If we go with the former option, that it isn't an expression of God's will, then it's impossible to extract any value from the Bible as a moral document because we are simply choosing which verses are God's will and which aren't subjectively, and if we can do that the Bible stops being morally useful. What is stopping someone from using only the Bible verse we think of as evil and constructing a moral theory around that. If we still want to hold on to the idea that morality comes from the Bible, one must say that the verse I cited and others like it are an expression of God's will. That leaves us with two more options, either that the verse I cited and others like it are moral, and that they are not moral. If we choose the former option, then we are degrading the entire concept of morality into simply what God commands. God could command anything and it would still be moral under this view, thus making the entire concept meaningless. If we choose the latter option, than what good is a moral theory if it produce immoral outcomes? Why would any chose to get their morality from said source? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the argument. It seems inescapable to me, but I don't know if I'm missing something. Thanks! Sincerely, -Matt"

RESPONSE-

Matthew, this is a good question and one which Dr. William Lane Craig deals with extensively. I will include a couple of reference links at the end of my answer for your further consideration. To begin let's review the Divine Command theory basis for morality to make sure we are on a level set regarding the claim. On Divine Command theory, moral values are derived from the *nature* of God who, as the greatest conceivable being, is the sum, definition, and ground of all moral values. By this, we mean that our values regarding good and evil, right and wrong, are derived from and grounded in, God's very nature. Moral duties refer to our obligations to act and behave in ways consistent with our moral values. These duties are derived from the commands of God, that in turn are grounded in and flow from his nature. So, in summary, our moral values are grounded in God's nature and our moral duties are derived from God's commands, and God's commands are grounded in and flow from his nature.

From that understanding of Divine Command theory, we can draw one important conclusion that is relevant to your question. Namely, that God cannot command something inconsistent with his nature, otherwise he would cease to be the greatest conceivable being and the supreme good thus undermining his own essential nature. Therefore, God's commands are consistent with his nature. So if we properly understand his commands we can be assured that those commands are consistent with his nature as the supreme good and ground of our moral values. But, clearly, this does not mean that your or my, or any other particular person's sense of what is moral, will agree with God's definition! When we consider a command that God gives, such as the command found in Deuteronomy you referenced in your question, we should rightly ask, "Is this a true and accurate representation of God's command?" If it is a true representation of God's command, then it is morally right whether you agree with it or not! That is the essence of the Divine Command theory. God is the definition of morality and from his character/nature, he commands. We are imperfect, limited, conflicted, and impure in our natures and understanding thus a very flawed moral agent. But as you noted this leaves us with some interesting, perhaps troubling, options in the face of such commands that offend our moral sensibilities. But my point here is to remember our moral sensibilities are flawed and corrupt! They exist, as reflections of our Creator and definition of moral values and duties to be sure, but our sensibilities are by definition *ours* and therefore limited and flawed.

Remembering the above, let's tackle the potentially troubling options you mention. It is certainly possible that the Bible is not presenting a true and accurate representation of God's command. But, as you note that would certainly open up some difficulties hermeneutically. But those difficulties can be addressed by proper hermeneutic principles and techniques to include textual criticism, for example, that might enable us to determine the passage in question had been corrupted over time. Manuscript evidence might show an alternate reading that resolves or relieves some of the issues. These types of tools are required to get an accurate reading and understanding of the text throughout scripture so this is not any form of "special pleading" it is simply the appropriate way to handle any ancient text in order to derive an accurate reading and understanding of the text. But, this is not our only option regarding the reading of the text. The text may be giving a perfectly true and accurate recounting of God's command but simply not providing all of the background details that would put the command in an adequate context for a modern reader to properly understand. This I believe to be the case in the passage you mentioned and the other similar passages to which you allude. This explanation assumes that there are adequate reasons and context details that would make a command to kill people morally acceptable. Dr. Craig deals with this in his explanation regarding the "slaughter of the Canaanites" to which I include a reference at the end of my answer. For example, would we consider it morally just to kill another human being to defend ourselves or a loved one? Would we consider it morally right, to kill in the case where an enraged man was beating a baby and the only way to save the baby was to kill the man? Was killing justifiable to stop the Nazis? It is clear that, given sufficient justifying details of context, the act of killing other humans can be morally justifiable. Therefore, the command from God to kill could certainly be justifiable. Consider further that God is omniscient. As much as you or I might know about a situation, God knows *all* about a situation! He not only knows all current facts but also knows the hearts of each individual completely. He also knows what free choices each person would make given any future situation (middle knowledge) and what future situations those people will encounter, and he knows all this perfectly. So, if God is the very definition of goodness, mercy, justice, love, etc then when he commands he is commanding in perfect consistency with those attributes of his nature, and he is commanding with the perfect knowledge of the entire context. While we cannot possibly have the full context in a few verses of scripture, God has absolutely perfect knowledge of the context and of all hearts and minds involved.

In light of the above, we do not have to choose between, God is giving immoral commands, or scripture is flawed in its representation of God's commands. Rather, scripture is providing an accurate, but necessarily limited, description of the context in which the Divine command is given. Were we to know and understand *all* factors that God knows, we would find sufficient justification for the command to be morally acceptable. Now, to refer back to a previous point, that does not mean you will agree! As we both know, there are people who would say there is never any justification to kill another human being. They believe capital punishment is immoral. They believe self-defense is immoral. But that is their subjective moral position that is clearly not in alignment with God's revealed nature and commands. His justice and even mercy dictate that in certain cases it is justifiable to kill. Individual human beings can have their moral sensibilities troubled by the perfect moral nature of God!

Hopefully, this helps Matthew. Please see the two below references for what Dr. Craig has to say about these issues. God bless you!

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/whence-moral-duties/

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

Slaughter of the Canaanites | Reasonable Faith In the forums, there has been some good questions raised on the issue of God commanding the Jews to commit “genocide” on the people in the promise land. As you have pointed out in some of your written work that this act does not fit with the Western concept of God being the big sugar daddy in the sky. Now we can certainly find justification for those people coming under God judgement ... www.reasonablefaith.org

Whence Moral Duties? | Reasonable Faith Hi Dr Craig, I just wanted to start my question off by assuring you of just how revered and appreciated you and your work is in the UK. Your work is considered of the utmost standard by those of us living across the pond! Recently there has been rather a lot of online hullabaloo regarding a new series of videos on morality (in which the presenter frequently cites your moral argument) by the ... www.reasonablefaith.org

Faith and Reason

A question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"1) What is the relationship between faith and knowledge? Which verses in the Bible show that this is the correct view of the relationship between faith and knowledge? 2) How should we interpret Proverbs 3:5-6? How do these verses relate to the answer to 1) above? "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." 3) How should we interpret Hebrews 11:1? How does this verse relate to the answer to 1) above? "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hope you can help. God bless"

ANSWER-

It's a great question! And it is a question that has been debated, discussed, and analyzed for most of Christian history. Faith is by no means contrary to reason or knowledge. Martin Luther's description is a very helpful way of looking at it. Martin Luther identified three elements of Christian faith to be 1) Understanding. This is to say that one must have a basic knowledge and understanding of the propositions or realities that ultimately become the object(s) of faith. 2) Assent. An intellectual assent or agreement to the propositions, facts, etc regarding the object of faith is necessary before one can have 3) Trust/confidence. One cannot trust or have confidence in something or someone that is unknown. Nor can one trust in something or someone without an intellectual agreement regarding specific propositional truths about that someone or something. So Luther would say that Christian faith (we could also refer to it as saving faith) in Jesus involves understanding some basic level of information about Jesus, such as that he lived, died, and rose again. But Christian faith in Jesus would also need intellectual assent to that information, meaning that one needs to agree that Jesus did in fact live, die, and rise again - not only understand the informational claim but also intellectually agree with its truth. But that's not enough. In addition to understanding the information or claims about Jesus, and agreeing that those things are true, authentic Christian faith must also trust in those things about Jesus and in Jesus himself. The final element of trust in Christian faith is built upon the first two elements but moves beyond them to a state of trust, confidence, and dependence upon and in the truths. If one understands the claim that Jesus actually lived in history, died on the cross, rose from the grave, and agrees those claims are true, and puts his or her trust in Jesus, his death and resurrection, he or she has Christian faith! This is a biblically aligned definition and description of Christian faith. And I believe it describes the relationship between faith and knowledge. Christian faith is not a blind leap or a nondescript sense of "believing" in something. No, it is an agreement to and trust *in* objective propositions and ultimately the person of Jesus Christ. So faith and knowledge work hand-in-hand. Someone who says that Christians simply believe without knowledge or evidence, or take a blind leap, is very misguided.

That is not to say that faith in God or Jesus Christ specifically, requires external evidence and argument. Philosophers (Dr. William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga for example) talk about belief in God as a "properly basic belief". What is meant by that, is that knowing and believing God exists can occur without a mental process of examining evidence and arguments, then arriving at the conclusion that God exists. Rather, a properly basic belief is an assumed belief that someone has derived without the need for such external evidence or argumentation. An example would be the belief that the external world is objectively real and not just a figment of one's imagination. People don't go through a logical process of examining evidence and argumentation and then conclude the external world is real! Rather, we assume the objective reality, and such properly basic beliefs are warranted. In a similar fashion, a person can arrive at the conclusion God exists by simply knowing, being convinced, that he exists. This is rationally appropriate because if indeed God does exist, he is a person with the ability to directly testify to someone of his existence. Similar to the way in which a child knows his parents exist without the need to prove it or gather evidence to conclude his parents exist, a person can know that God exists. This is a properly basic belief. In such cases, it may or may not lead to the element of trust, so may or may not be authentic Christian/saving faith. But if not, it certainly is a legitimate belief that is derived in a manner apart from external evidence and argumentation. Such a faith is not irrational as it is not necessarily opposed to knowledge or logic but simply derived in an immediate manner through a personal encounter with the living God. In such cases, it is highly likely, indeed probable, the person seeks to understand and even verify the belief with external evidence and argumentation. As the great theologian, Anselm stated it, fides quaerens intellectum "Faith seeking understanding". For Anselm, this would apply to the one who had authentic, "saving" Christian faith and seeks deeper knowledge of God.

Now, to the other part of your question. Is this understanding of the relationship between faith and knowledge biblical and how does it align (or not) with the passages you specifically mention? The biblical support for a properly basic belief in God (whether "saving" faith or not) seems to be rather obvious so I will refer to one passage but many could be cited. The call of Abraham seems to be such an example in Gen 12:1-7. The narrative could certainly be said to pick up in mid-stream in verse one without providing some set of previous events that could indicate this encounter with God was more in line with a culmination of external evidence and argumentation. We see such encounters with God of course, such as the case of Moses where the burning bush and turning the staff into a serpent function as external evidence and argumentation to convince Moses. But here in Gen 12:1 the text simply says, "Now the Lord had said..." (NKJV) or "Now the Lord said..." (ESV). Further, in verse 7 we see that God appeared to Abraham and "said".  There is no indication in these texts of external signs and wonders as we see in other places. Yet Abraham built an altar to the Lord and moved on as God had commanded so clearly Abraham believed. And of course, we're told in Rom 4:3 that Abraham believed God. Many more passages likewise seem to indicate an immediate, personal experience with God that results in belief.

But does the Bible support the idea that faith relates to knowledge as described above in regards to external knowledge and argumentation? Yes, I believe it clearly does. Again, there are many passages that could be cited but I will only cite a couple of key passages that illustrate the point and then address Proverbs 3:5-6 and Heb 11:1. First to consider is the passage describing Moses' encounter with God at the burning bush in Exodus 3-4:17. This encounter is clearly an encounter with God in which God appears externally rather than in a purely internal manner. Moses obviously saw a bush burning but not being consumed, he heard an audible voice, God reasoned with him and gave him signs to help assure and convince him, and God even said the signs he promised would be used to convince Israel so they would believe (4:4-9). God uses the external testimony of reason by way of signs and argumentation to convince Moses so he would ultimately have faith to carry out God's plan. And God told Moses that he would give him powerful signs so Israel would believe that the God of their fathers was real, had seen their suffering, and was with Moses to deliver them.

Another great example of the relationship between knowledge and faith is seen in John 11, the narrative of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Here, Jesus makes it very clear he wants to use this situation as an external sign for people to see and believe. He tells his disciples this in verse 15. He then says it in prayer to the Father in verse 42, and then we see John tell us in verse 45 that many believed because of the things they saw Jesus do. Without a doubt, this is a great example of how people often arrive at authentic Christian faith in a manner that aligns with the human faculty of reason. People see the miracles performed by Jesus, understand what they see, agree that, as he had claimed, he must be more than just a mere man, and then trusted in him.

But does Proverbs 3:5-6 mitigate against this understanding? Not at all. We must see 3:5-6 in the context set by the passage in the first 4 verses. The key is verse 1 - the writer is admonishing his son to *not* forsake the commandments that he had passed on to him. That's the point of the passage. It takes the faculty of reason to understand that instruction and those commands! Then the writer is encouraging his son to trust the Lord and be humble. The admonition to "lean not on your own understanding" in this context is not meant to discourage thinking or reasoning. Rather, it is meant as a warning the son to not allow his reasoning to lead to a rejection of God and his commands. The admonition is to not be arrogant and think that his understanding and wisdom is greater than his father's and God's. So this passage seems to offer nothing contrary at all to the concept of reason working hand-in-hand with faith but instead functions as a warning against arrogance. Arrogance is actually a dangerous state of mind that obscures one's rational thinking!

But what about Heb 11:1 and how are we to understand it in the light of this question? To understand Heb 11:1 we need to examine also 11:6, 13, and 19. By taking these 4 verses together from Heb 11 we see that the writer is focusing primarily on that third element of faith, the element of trust and confidence. In the case of Heb 11, the writer chooses to provide numerous examples of historical figures who put their confidence in God's promises to such a degree they were willing to sacrifice and do great things based on that confidence. In verse one, that confidence is so strong it is as if it's a tangible possession of the thing hoped for. The one who has this kind of faith is so confident, trusts God so completely, it is as if he has the promise when in fact he does not yet have it. But the one with faith trusts God completely to deliver on his promise. Such trust motivates one to act as if he or she already possesses the promise but simply hasn't received it yet. That kind of faith is what James talks about being accompanied by works because it apprehends the thing hoped for, trusted in, and believed in, to such a degree that it changes one's life to become oriented around the object of faith. This is exactly what the writer of Hebrews is demonstrating with the "faith hall of fame". These heroes of faith so believed God that it changed how they lived. They lived not by sight because God had not yet delivered on his promise. Rather, they lived by faith having such confidence in God that he would deliver on his promise, it was as if they had already received it or had solid, tangible evidence of it.

Verse 6 is fascinating in that it reveals two elements of faith explicitly and implies the first element. The person of faith can please God because he comes to God (this is the implied first element because obviously such a person has understood certain things in order to come at all) believing that God exists demonstrating the intellectual assent that what he or she has heard is indeed true, that God exists! Then the third element of faith is demonstrated when the person with God-pleasing faith trusts that God is good and is a rewarder of those who diligently or sincerely seek him as previously demonstrated by the heroes of faith. This verse is a very nice explanation of the three elements of Christian faith.  Verse 13 demonstrates what the writer mentioned in verse one. The people with faith saw as it were the fulfilled promises of God from afar. They didn't have the promises of God in the here and now but had such trust and confidence in God they lived as pilgrims simply passing through this world on their way to receive the promises of God. It changed their perspective and how they lived. They were assured of receiving the promises, they had complete trust and confidence. This is the key third element of saving faith.

Finally, verse 19 is very instructive in showing the link between this kind of trust and confidence to the human faculty of reasoning. Abraham "concluded" that God could even raise Isaac from the dead if need be. This indicates intellectual deliberation or reasoning. The Greek word used here is "logizomai" coming from the root "logos" from which we get the word logic. It is a verb in this verse indicating the act of reasoning, thinking through, considering something. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that Abraham thought about it, reasoning that based on what he knew of God, his past experiences, God's promises, etc, he could trust God's ability, willingness, goodness, and faithfulness, to fulfill his promise even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead! Far from blind, unreasoning faith, Abraham's faith was a rational faith. It was a faith that was interrelated to Abraham's knowledge of God based on experiences (evidence), and his rational processes of reasoning, but also a faith that went beyond intellectual assent to a profound trust and confidence in God. It was a trust and confidence growing out of his knowledge of and experience with God, not in spite of it.

Anonymous, hopefully, this helps put the pieces together for you. Thanks again for writing. God bless you!

A Jesus Conspiracy Theory!

The following is a question I received and my response:

QUESTION-

"Could the prophesies from the old testament have been fulfilled not only intentionally by Jesus, but a wider organization as well? I know this sounds ridiculous, but I was bothered by the possibility that Jesus could have been part of a larger conspiracy to fulfill the prophesies and appear as the Messiah. If there was a hypothetical organization, and it's members included Mary and Joseph, couldn't they have chosen to go to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophesy of the Messiah's birth? Additionally, this secret organization was cult-like, then Jesus might have been willing to give his life to support the goal of the organization. Finally, a piece of strong evidence in favor of the resurrection of evidence is that he not only appeared to his disciples, but that he was perfectly healthy, leading them to believe in him and spread the news of his resurrection, even though they would die for it. But what if the disciples were all part of the organization as well? Then they might have made up the appearance of Jesus, and if they were members of this hypothetical organization/cult, they might have had incentive enough to die for spreading the message. Is it also possible there was simply a Jesus look-alike? I know this sounds ridiculous and it's definitely a conspiracy theory, but it has been bothering me, and I'd love if you could address it. Thank you."

ANSWER-

Thanks for your question...and I must admit it does sound a little far fetched! It's certainly possible that such a scenario could have happened, in a logical and physical possibility sense. But, there is really no evidence to suggest that it did. Whenever we think about historical events we can always let our imaginations run wild and conjecture about any number of possibilities. But, we should reign in our imaginations with logic, evidence, and in the case of scripture, the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If we do that, it will keep us from being troubled by outlandish possibilities.

Regarding the conspiracy you imagine in your question, I think you will see if we apply some critical historical discipline, it crumbles rather quickly. First, your imagined conspiracy seems to contain the idea of intentionality on the part of Jesus and possibly others who would be choosing to do certain things intentionally in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecies. You should not be troubled by the idea of intentionality. In fact, we can be quite confident that Jesus did certain things intentionally to fulfill OT prophecies. Scripture (Mat 5:17) tells us this explicitly! Jesus, being God incarnate, inspired the prophets to write what they wrote, he obviously knew what was intended and knew why he came - it was to fulfill the prophecies that he himself caused to be proclaimed. He told the religious leaders that the Old Testament scriptures in which they search for eternal life testify of him (Jn 5:39). So we see clearly that Jesus would be expected to "intentionally" fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. That certainly should not trouble you.

Secondly, what about others who may have also been intentional in their activities to fulfill prophecy. We have no indication that any of the others had such intentionality. In fact, prior to Jesus' resurrection, all scriptural evidence indicates that his followers, family, and others did not realize the true nature of his messiahship. Specifically, they did not expect or anticipate a suffering servant Messiah who would suffer and die a vicarious death for the atonement of sin. The idea of Messiah as a suffering servant may not have been completely absent prior to the post-resurrection understanding of Jesus by his followers, but it is greatly debated among scholars that such an idea existed at all. And it is almost certain, that no idea of a Messiah who would die a vicarious, atoning death existed prior to Christianity. This is strong evidence that the followers of Jesus would not have expected anything like what Jesus indeed was, a Messiah who would willingly sacrifice himself as a vicarious sin offering to the Father on behalf of his people. This, of course, would make it untenable that they were involved in a conspiracy to "fulfill" Old Testament prophecy in such a manner as to make Jesus appear to be the Suffering Servant of Isa 53 as a divine/human, Messiah who would suffer for the atonement of sin. Because there is no evidence that this understanding existed until after the resurrection of Jesus! It took a radical, transformational event to change the thinking of Jesus' followers in order for them to understand this new revelation of Messiah as One who would suffer for them and die as the atonement for their sin.

And thirdly, that leads to the final element of your concern. Could the disciples have been part of a conspiracy to fake the death and resurrection of Jesus? This objection has been around from the beginning! In fact, it is referenced in the New Testament itself, see Mat 28:13-15. There is a reason this objection has not ever gained much of a following. It is because it is not very plausible. As noted above, Jews of the day did not expect such a Messiah as Jesus. Instead, they expected an anointed servant of God with special abilities who would come and deliver Israel and establish an earthly kingdom in which Israel would be preeminent under the rule of Messiah. Obviously, a suffering, dying, resurrecting, and ascending to heaven type of Messiah whose rule was in the hearts of mankind, and would be for Gentiles as well as Jews, was a total non sequitur! If they were going to concoct a conspiracy in order to establish a successful cult or organization, this is definitely NOT the one they would concoct! Additionally, why would they concoct a conspiracy that would ensure their own persecution and death? This would be utterly counterproductive.  Further, if the disciples were in on the lie, then why sustain the lie in the face of persecution and death? You said, "they might have had incentive enough" to die for the lie...but what could that have been? This in fact is one evidence for the validity of the resurrection itself, that the actual resurrection of Jesus provides the powerful incentive that would be needed to face persecution and death - not only for themselves but also for their families. They lost everything of worldly value - ostracized, persecuted, loss of reputation, and ultimately death and the probable destruction of their families. The actual resurrection of Jesus which validated his teaching about who he was, the kind of Messiah he was, and provided the hope of eternal life with him in glory, would be the incentive needed for what the disciples did. It seems inconceivable that they would have endured all that for a known lie which they themselves perpetrated!

 C**** hopefully, this helps to address your concerns. God bless you!

Study Through Philippians - Week 1

THE KEY TO JOY, UNITY, CONTENTMENT, & SUFFERING WELL

The Study of Paul's Letter to the PhilippiansClick here for audio

Paul's letter to the Philippians is certainly a practical letter written to a group of fellow believers that he deeply loved and was concerned about. In spite of its practical purpose and nature there are tremendous teachings in this letter that apply to all believers of all times. Among the great things we learn and to which we are exhorted in this letter are to be filled with joy, live in unity within the body of Christ, be content and satisfied, and to stand firm in the true faith in the face of persecution. In this letter Paul clearly explains the key to attaining these virtues of joy, unity, contentment and suffering well. Because it is more practical in nature than perhaps Romans for instance, we will have to look a little more carefully to understand what Paul wants us to see as the key to these virtues but the effort will be well worth it!

1. 1:1-11- Background and Introduction (week 1)
   1. Paul and Timothy...bondservants (slaves) of Jesus Christ
      1. Identifies himself along with Timothy his companion and son in the faith (Ac 16:1)
      2. Bondservants/slaves of Christ. Paul's self-identification is as a slave to Christ – a willing, adoring slave but nevertheless compelled to follow and serve. But the compulsion is one of love – compelled by the love of Christ and compelled by love for Christ (1Cor 16:22, 2Cor 5:14)
      3. In Paul's mind the highest honor is not that he is an Apostle, leader, prophet etc – but a slave!
   2. To the saints in Philippi – the holy ones, set apart ones, - in Christ Jesus. It is in Christ alone that we are holy, set apart by God unto God as His special people for His special purpose.
      1. Also to the church leaders – Bishops or overseers (pastors/elders) and deacons.
      2. Philippi was a Roman colony so enjoyed special status and privileges and its citizens were proud of this fact.
      3. We learn about the founding of the church in Philippi by Paul in Acts 16:14-40. Paul probably made his first visit in AD 49-50 and wrote this letter to them in AD 61-62 shortly before his martyrdom.
   3. He prays for them with all joy because of his love for them and their fellowship in the gospel ministry from the beginning until now so their relationship has stayed strong through the years and, as we shall see, through much hardship and persecution
   4. Paul's confidence and hope (which fuels our prayer life) is based on God's sovereign work in the lives of the Philippian Christians and in all Christians (vs 6).
      1. This is one of the key teachings that we find along the way in this letter. It is not one of the primary purposes of the letter to teach the truth of God's sovereign work of grace in saving AND sustaining Christians but Paul uses this truth to encourage them.
      2. God save us by His sovereign grace. We don't work for it, earn it, deserve it, get better positioned for it. God begins the work AND finishes the work strictly by His unmerited grace so there can be NO boasting on our part (Rom 3:27).
      3. God will finish His work in us causing us to endure, persevere to the end – until Jesus takes us to Himself.
   5. Paul overflows with love and affection for the Philippians and reveals that he is in chains (vs 7). Most likely he is in Rome in prison as the book of Acts leaves off, teaching and preaching from house arrest as it were.
      1. The defense and confirmation of the gospel refers to his arrest instigated by the Jews over the fact that he was standing firm that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone...and equally available to Gentile and Jew alike (Ac 21-28).
      2. The Philippians have been a faithful partner with Paul in his mission and their mission – to live for Christ and spread the word about Him. He will elaborate more on this throughout the letter.
   6. One of his main prayer focus areas for the Philippians is that their love will abound with knowledge and discernment (vs 9). This is hugely instructive!
      1. So many Christians get sucked into dangerous movements and bad teachings because they mistakenly embrace the doctrines of love and grace without embracing with equal fervor the doctrines of truth and justice. Paul prays (and therefore exhorts) that the Philippians have their love fully undergirded by knowledge and discernment.
      2. Only by a strong commitment to reading and studying the word of God can we ensure that we know Christ who reveals that God is love (1Jn 4:8) AND claims for Himself that He is the Way and the Truth (Jn 14:6).
      3. The flow of our culture is that everyone's opinion is equally valid, truth is relative, the “politics” of a situation or topic is more important than the truth of it...but God's word clearly teaches that truth is non-negotiable and that as Christians we must be equally committed to truth AND love, grace AND justice. Only by God's word and His Holy Spirit can we achieve this.
   7. This is the ONLY way we will be able to approve, confirm, acknowledge and embrace the true and excellent things of God so that we will remain sincere and without offense until Christ returns to claim us.
      1. This is also the key to producing the fruit of righteousness. If he have truth without love we fail (1Cor 13), but if we have love without truth and discernment we fail to. We can be led into sin which compromises both love and truth.
      2. The fruit of righteousness can only come through/by Christ. In other words, it is because we are saints (set apart) in Him that we can do anything that pleases God. Christ covers us with His righteousness so we are righteous in God's sight but also God then works to produce His righteousness in us so we glorify Him.
      3. This is Paul's prayer for the Philippians whom he loved deeply. Let this be instructive to us as well. I think we spend too much time praying for physical healing, jobs, and various other types of earthly comforts on behalf of our loved ones. Rather let us spend more time praying that our loved ones will know Christ and grow in love for Christ and others and will produce the fruit of righteousness for the glory of God.

Philippians Bible Study Outline

THE KEY TO JOY, UNITY, CONTENTMENT, & SUFFERING WELL

The Study of Paul's Letter to the Philippians

Paul's letter to the Philippians is certainly a practical letter written to a group of fellow believers that he deeply loved and was concerned about. In spite of its practical purpose and nature there are tremendous teachings in this letter that apply to all believers of all times. Among the great things we learn and to which we are exhorted in this letter are to be filled with joy, live in unity within the body of Christ, be content and satisfied, and to stand firm in the true faith in the face of persecution. In this letter Paul clearly explains the key to attaining these virtues of joy, unity, contentment and suffering well. Because it is more practical in nature than perhaps Romans for instance, we will have to look a little more carefully to understand what Paul wants us to see as the key to these virtues but the effort will be well worth it!

1. 1:1-11- Background and Introduction (week 1)
2. John Piper Sermon on Php 3 – Video (week 2 – Bruce out of town)
3. 1:12-30- For to me to live is Christ...! (week 3)

4. 2:1-18- Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (weeks 4 & 5)
5. 2:19-30- ...and hold such men in esteem (week 6)
6. 3:1-21- I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus...(weeks 7 & 8)
7. 4:1-8- Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I will say rejoice! (week 9)
8. 4:9-23- I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (week 10)

What is Biblical Preaching?

In conservative Christian circles it is typically popular and desirable to say, "My church really believes in biblical preaching/teaching" or, "my Pastor is really committed to biblical preaching". Like so many other fine sounding acclamations it depends on what is meant by "biblical preaching". And unfortunately, I am persuaded that many Christians don't know what true biblical preaching really is. Many THINK their churches or Pastors are pursuing biblical teaching and preaching when in fact they are not.

Often in the course of defining something it is helpful to first define what it is NOT. I think such is the case here. 1) Biblical teaching/preaching is not simply teaching or preaching about a topic that is also covered by the Bible. One can cover the topic of adultery for instance in a very UNbiblical fashion - both in message and method! 2) Biblical teaching/preaching is not simply teaching or preaching in which a biblical passage is referenced or read. It is quite common that someone references or reads a biblical passage and then proceeds to teach or preach something quite different than what the biblical passage communicated. This might happen for instance when someone reads Romans 1:18-32 and then departs on a message about the social evils of homosexuality. OR, some might preach about how that passage doesn't refer to homosexuality at all and thus homosexuality is OK! Neither message would be truly biblical as far as it relates to the main message of Romans 1:18-32. 3) Biblical teaching/preaching is not simply teaching or preaching a specific biblical text EVEN if that teaching or preaching explains that specific text properly. How can this be? Let's use 1 John 4:8 for example. Someone can preach that passage and explain the wonders of the truth that God is love...and that's what the passage says! But John wrote five complete chapters worth of doctrine in the letter we call 1 John. If we take 1 John 4:8 out of the context of the entire letter of 1 John and/or out of the larger context of the whole Bible, we will communicate an unbiblical message. Of course one could argue that in such a case 1 John 4:8 was not properly interpreted...and one would be right!

So if someone can teach or preach about biblical topics, teach or preach about Bible passages, even teach or preach so as to "correctly" explain a specific biblical passage but STILL not be teaching or preaching biblically...what does it mean to be truly biblical in regards to teaching and preaching? First, note how subtle this can be and difficult to discern. This absolutely calls for the discernment of the Spirit and for God's people to be diligent when reading/listening to teaching or preaching that purports to be biblical. Properly reading and listening to the word of God or to the teaching and preaching of the word is a worship and spiritual experience. We must pray for discernment and enlightenment so that we are edified and not deceived. As scripture itself teaches, "...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..." (1 John 4:1). Secondly, biblical teaching and preaching must be FAITHFUL to the original meaning and intent of the specific biblical text. I will unpack this last sentence in two parts. 1) To be truly biblical, teaching and preaching must be faithful to the ORIGINAL meaning and intent. This is critical. Evangelical Christians believe scripture is the fully and verbally inspired, infallible word of God. If so, then the very words as they were originally communicated had an intended meaning at that time. It may be somewhat difficult for us today to get back to that original meaning but it is absolutely imperative that we do because that is when and how God spoke! God is NOT speaking in the same way now through other writers or preachers. He spoke finally and ultimately through His Son Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-2) and the New Testament scriptures, being the direct witness to the Son, are included in that final speaking. So we must honor God's speaking, His word, by being faithful to the original meaning and intent of His very words. 2) To be truly biblical, teaching and preaching must be faithful...to the specific biblical text. Although true biblical teaching or preaching can be topical it must also be exegetical or expository. Both "exegetical" and "expository" basically mean that the teaching or preaching is explanatory in nature. The PURPOSE of true biblical teaching and preaching is to EXPLAIN the meaning of the biblical text. Therefore to qualify as truly biblical, teaching and preaching MUST explain the original meaning and intent of the biblical text.

An example may help to clarify the difference. I already stated that if one were to read or reference Romans 1:18-32 and then proceed to teach and preach about how homosexuality was harmful to society (or not) it would not be biblical. I said that because Romans 1:18-32 most certainly does condemn homosexuality but it does NOT speak to the social harm derived from homosexuality. Perhaps the reference to "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" is a reference to some consequence that is social in nature and certainly all the wicked behaviors have social consequences but the point of the passage is not the social consequences. The one preacher who embarks on a sermon condemning homosexuality and denouncing its ill effects on society is not explaining the text and not being faithful to its original meaning and intent. The other preacher who embarks on a sermon trying to explain how this passage really doesn't condemn homosexuality completely misses the original meaning and intent as well and thus is also not biblical. Is one preacher "better" than the other in this example? Yes! At least the one preacher gets it right that Romans 1:18-32 condemns homosexuality and there certainly are terrible social consequences from it. However, his sermon is not biblical in the truest sense because he is using a passage to support his sermon about the social ills of homosexuality and that is NOT what Romans 1:18-32 is really about.

So what is Romans 1:18-32 about? I do not wish to take the enormous time and space to fully explain Romans 1:18-32 and support my interpretation. So I will give a brief summation and defense. In a nutshell Romans 1:18-32 explains how all of mankind is guilty of robbing God of His glory and is therefore rightfully under His wrath. The passage functions for Paul as a foundation or defense for his assertions in Romans 1:16-17. Therefore it plays a HUGE role in properly understanding the gospel and God's purposes in devising a plan of salvation in the manner that He did. It really isn't about homosexuality or any other specific sin. Sin and individual sins are expressions of human beings refusing to acknowledge God and give Him glory. God's glory is the truth they suppress (Rom 1:18b) because the truth is plain (1:19) being clearly seen through creation (1:20) so they have no excuse (1:20b) for not glorifying Him and thanking Him (1:21).  Homosexuality and all sin has tremendous and terrible consequences for society for sure.  It would not be inappropriate to point this out in a biblical sermon as long as it is done in the setting of and consistent with the actual meaning of the biblical text.

Properly interpreting and preaching Romans 1:18-32 makes a HUGE difference in how we understand and see things. Primarily it helps us to see that it really is all about Him! Living for God's glory is the goal. When we don't, we are sinning and rightfully under His wrath. It also enables us to understand the correct meaning of Romans 3:23. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" doesn't primarily mean we fail to stack up to God's perfect moral standard - although that is certainly true. In the context of Paul's thought in Romans (as first explained in 1:18-32) it means that we do not and cannot live in such a way as to properly glorify God. We don't give Him the credit or thanks due Him. Instead, we suppress the truth of His glory through our thoughts, words, and deeds.  We try to rob God of His glory and THAT is a vile and wicked rebellion that deserves His holy wrath.

So, if one is going to teach and preach biblically it must be faithful and true to the original meaning and intent that God communicated through the writer. And here is the wonderful, mysterious, and beautiful thing: Preachers need not worry about contemporary relevance, seeker sensitivities, techniques such as humor and multi-media, IF they trust God's word in Romans 1:16. For God's word, and the Gospel in particular, truly is the power of God unto salvation. Preachers, programs, and techniques have no power to save. Preach the Word...in season and out!  Trust God for the results...and He will be glorified!

Watch very closely

Be aware and watch this closely..."The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text. The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011" (Associated Press 9-3-2009).

It is not the rule that people take the Apostle Paul's stance to determine not to handle the word of God deceitfully (2Cor 4:2), it is the exception. Just because the NIV today is a solid translation (not with out fault but good) does not mean it will remain that way after this revision. Judge it carefully and compare it to other trusted translations (NKJV, NASB, ESV).

Suffering

A question that has haunted mankind since nearly the dawn of time is, "why do we suffer"? Implied in that question is the more precise question, "is suffering senseless and random or does it have a purpose or reason"? The typical answers fall into three basic categories: 1) Suffering is random and senseless because nature is random and senseless. This answer implies there is no God or God cannot or will not be involved to change events. 2) Suffering is not random and senseless because nature is not that way. Nature is not random and senseless because God is the designer and is involved, thus He has a purpose in all things. Christianity falls into this category as do perhaps Islam and Judaism although not as clearly as Christianity. 3) Suffering is an illusion. It does not really exist. What we perceive as suffering is really rooted in our misunderstanding and ignorance. New age religion/philosophy, which is an offshoot from Eastern religions such as Buddhism, falls into this category.


The implications for these three perspectives are profound and greatly influence how we live. If one adheres to some form of category one (atheism is one expression of it) the necessary result is hopelessness. Such a one sees suffering as random, senseless and ruthless robbing one's life and joy. Such suffering cannot be controlled and the most we can hope for is to courageously face it as humans thereby demonstrating our character...but in the end we all suffer and die and there is nothing more. Children die, and it is not just or unjust only tragic and sad and hopeless. People get incurable cancer in the prime of life and it simply robs and destroys and there is nothing more but to suffer and die. Dying with dignity serves only to retain some elusive sense of self-pride but in the end it means nothing.


If one adheres to some form of category three (new age, Wicca, Christian Science would all be expressions of it) the necessary result is confusion and denial. People with this perspective see history and experience life in one way (suffering is real and prevalent) but deny that it is real by choosing to believe suffering is a wrong expression of Mind (our individual minds are simply expression of Mind). Of course one must ask, "why isn't a wrong expression of Mind actual suffering"? So the inherent logic of such a perspective must be questioned. This perspective has little power to enable people to deal with life and suffering. Its "power" is in its denial of reality as we know it. It provides "hope" by providing a basis for denying the reality of suffering but in the end there is no lasting hope because all adherents to this perspective clearly suffer and death holds the most likely prospect of repeating the cycle again and again! Presumably the only way out of the cycle of repetitive suffering is to deny suffering so effectively that the individual ceases to suffer in this life which indicates a state in which true harmony with Mind has been achieved and the cycle will end at death. But the state of full harmony with Mind enjoyed at death for the successful adherent results in a loss of individuality. So even with the final end of suffering and achievement of harmony the individual is lost so he/she who suffered (perhaps hundreds of lifetimes of suffering) will not be able to experience the joy of that harmony!


If one adheres to some form of category two (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) the result is some degree of real hope. This category claims that suffering is not totally random and senseless because there is God. The fact that God exists and has some degree of control over life and history, are aspects that these three faiths share. Depending to which of the various traditions within these three faiths one adheres, God is seen as being more or less in control which directly affects the perspective on suffering. But the most important impact on the issue of suffering is the soteriology (doctrine of salvation) of each of the three faiths. Again, there are distinctives within each of the three faiths depending on various streams of tradition. However I propose that the Christian faith has the strongest and most effective answer to the question of suffering and provides the most powerful hope. That answer comes most clearly from the Christian doctrine of salvation that I will discuss in more detail below.


As do all three faiths in category two above, Christianity believes that God exists, that He created all things, and that He sustains all things according to His sovereign purposes. Some traditions within Christianity view God's sovereign control over history as more or less absolute. Although the explanations of how it all works together vary, it is fair to say that most expressions of orthodox Christian faith view God as in control over history AND mankind as responsible and accountable creatures. So the issue of God's freedom over against man's freedom and how the two interrelate is a major issue in the discussion of suffering. It is expressed something like this, "If God is good and all powerful why is there still suffering? Couldn't God have made the world in such a way that suffering never existed? No, because mankind must be free in order to truly love God and mankind has misused that freedom to rebel against God and do wicked things and therefore cause suffering. But, does that rebellion cause natural disasters and random cancers too? Why doesn't God at least stop those? Why couldn't God make man truly free and totally innocent so he wouldn't think of sinning to start with"? This sample "dialogue" represents many of the questions/issues that arise. Here are some answers...


1. Christianity answers the question of suffering with God's sovereignty and omnipotence (all powerful). God is in control and the events and circumstances that cause suffering are not random and senseless. In fact, the Bible declares that all events are ordered and directed by God for His purposes (Proverbs 19:21, Isaiah 46:10, Ephesians 1:11). How does this help us with suffering? What is more frightening; to think that chaos reigns and you WILL be a victim of it with no recourse and no lasting value to be gained from it, or to think that there is a purpose to all things even the bad things? Unless God is evil, the answer is clearly that the latter situation is better. So God's character is an essential issue to the discussion...


2. Christianity answers the question of suffering with God's character. God is certainly sovereign and all powerful but is He good? He absolutely is! The Bible is resoundingly clear on this (Psalms 73:1, Mark 10:18, John 3:16). So, if God is sovereign and all powerful AND He is good then we know that whatever He does is just and good. But that implies that suffering is good - if God is directing all things (sovereign) and He could stop suffering (all powerful) and He is good. That is the dilemma that must be answered.


3. Christianity answers the question of suffering with God's holiness. God's holiness is the truth that He is unique, special, valuable, set apart as the absolute treasure of the universe. God Himself is the MOST valuable reality. As creator He made all of creation to reflect His worth. Mankind was created to do so in a special way being created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). Therefore, since humans were created in God's image there is a natural "fit" and inclination toward communion with God. Mankind cannot be satisfied or truly and lastingly joyful unless in communion with God as originally intended. Proper communion with God includes acknowledging Him to be the ultimate value and treasure thereby placing everything else in some lesser status (Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 6:4). Said another way, the proper response to God is to love Him with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength (Matthew 22:36-38). So if God is the ultimate prize/treasure/value and all our love and desire should be toward Him, suffering can become a benefit to us if it serves to elevate God to that highest place of value and reduce other non-God things to their appropriate lower place of value in our lives.


But humans do not naturally want to honor God as the supreme value because of sin. Sin separates humans from God because it causes humans to elevate self and other created things into the place of God. So sin must be dealt with. Christianity teaches that sin CANNOT be dealt with by anything a person can do because trying to achieve acceptance by God through personal works and achievements is inherently self-righteous. This elevates self above God by saying essentially that God owes the person acceptance due to the worth of their righteous acts. The Bible claims just the opposite by saying that our righteous acts are as filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). So what can be done? How is communion with God established? How can sin be dealt with? Without this acceptance by God there can be no confidence that suffering will be a benefit to us because we are not in communion with God. Rather, the Bible says that God is against us and not for us if sin is not dealt with and we are not in communion with Him (Romans 1:18, 6:23, Colossians 1:21, Hebrews 10:26-27). So taking care of sin and establishing communion with God is absolutely necessary to deal with the issue of suffering in a hope-full way. So...


4. Christianity answers the question of suffering with God's salvation. God takes care of the sin problem that we cannot take care of. This brings us back into communion with Him and changes our relationship with God from one of enmity to one of friendship (Romans 5:9-11, 2Corinthians 5:18-20 Ephesians 1:1-10). When God restores communion with us we can be assured that God is for us and not against us (Romans 8:31). And He promises to work ALL things together for our good (Romans 8:28). All things include even suffering things. God takes care of the sin problem not by simply excusing it because this would make Him unjust (Romans 3:21-28). Instead, He Himself absorbs the punishment or consequences for our sin through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. He suffers with us and takes the pain of sin which is the ultimate cause of suffering into Himself on the cross (Isaiah 53, 2Corinthians 5:21). This is absolutely astonishing! God suffers with us and takes our rebellion (sin) into Himself to eliminate it so He can show mercy and lavish us with His communion and grace (Ephesians 1:1-8). Because of Jesus Christ we also know that God's character is absolutely holy and blameless and He never goes back on a promise because in Christ all His promises have been completed and answered "yes" (2Corinthians 1:19-20). If suffering is used by God to help us know Him more, and enhance our communion with Him, and cause us to properly honor Him as the supreme treasure then it is to our benefit. This means that God restores our relationship with Him, restores communion with Him, and turns all events in our lives into aides toward ensuring our ultimate and eternal good - wow! Now true hope in spite of circumstances emerges because of this salvation truth.


5. Christianity answers the question of suffering with God's eternal glory. This is actually a continuation of number 4 above. God's eternal glory is the end goal of all things including our salvation AND it is the end goal of our joy - to share and enjoy God's eternal glory (Revelation 21:1-8). This has a profound impact on suffering. The Christian can say, "I consider this current suffering as a light and momentary affliction compared with the eternal joy and glory to come" (Romans 8:18)! It provides an eternal perspective by which suffering can be properly evaluated. Against the backdrop of eternal (forever) joy and glory with Christ in the new heaven and new earth even a full lifetime of constant suffering greatly diminishes in significance. It doesn't become insignificant, but it loses much of its significance as that which defines human existence.


So in the end, Christianity provides the worldview that establishes a framework for living with suffering. But a worldview, a framework of understanding, a philosophy crumbles under the pressure of real life if it is not rooted in truth. Christianity is based on the hard facts of God becoming man in the person of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. God did this for His glory first and our good second. Jesus lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the grave victorious over sin and death. By God's gracious decision Christ becomes the substitute for all who believe in Him - embrace Him with trust and love - so that all who are in Christ (identified with Christ through faith) are accepted by God as righteous. What hope, what joy, what courage this brings to the Christian!