Tag Archives: Christianity

How much influence does the devil really have?

Leave a reply

Before I address this subject, I want to talk a bit about my personal background and how it leads to this topic. I grew up reading a lot of writing from the Word-of-Faith branch of Pentecostalism, which places heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare. The devil was portrayed as a major agent behind humans’ immorality. A lot of emphasis was placed on the need for Christians to exercise their authority over the devil to be freed from sin.

As I entered my early adult years, my faith started going through a major overhaul. It was not a rejection of everything I had known before. Rather, it was a diversification into doctrines of other types of Christianity. Interestingly, my background in the Word-of-Faith movement helped me understand some of the things I later came to believe.

But one thing I noticed was that, as my theological overhaul unfolded, I thought about the devil less and less. I wondered whether that was a good or bad development. On one hand, I thought it may be a good thing in the sense that, the less you think about something, the less you give it a sphere of influence. But on the other hand, I wondered if I was failing to recognize a serious threat to myself or others, thus yielding to complacency. However, I believe I have come to see why my attention on the devil has declined so sharply, and that, at least in my own situation, it is not a bad development at all.

I have put a lot of emphasis on Book of Romans in this blog. By doing so, I am not encouraging people to only read Romans and ignore the rest of the Bible. Rather, I am highlighting Romans because there are themes which cannot be found anywhere else in the New Testament, and I really feel that this should be appreciated. Most of the unique teachings in Romans have to do with human nature, and how Christ’s death and resurrection are related to human nature. This is significant because in other parts of the New Testament, Christ’s death is emphasized primarily as a substitutionary atonement for sin or a fulfillment of prophesy.

So, while we’re comparing different parts of the New Testament, let’s look at how many times the devil is referenced in each book. I have obtained the reference counts from Biblegateway.com, searching the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

Occurrences of the word “devil”:
Matthew (6)
Luke (7)
John (3)
Acts (2)
Ephesians (2)
1 Timothy (2)
2 Timothy (1)
Hebrews (1)
James (2)
1 Peter (1)
1 John (2)
Jude (1)
Revelation (5)

Notice that there are zero references in Romans.

Now, here are occurrences of the term “Satan”:
Matthew (3)
Mark (5)
Luke (5)
John (1)
Acts (2)
Romans (1)
1 Corinthians (2)
2 Corinthians (3)
1 Thessalonians (1)
2 Thessalonians (1)
1 Timothy (2)
Revelation (7)

Just one reference in Romans. We’ll talk about that one reference later.

Now, here are occurrences of the word “demon”
Matthew (18)
Mark (16)
Luke (25)
John (6)
1 Corinthians (3)
Galatians (1)
1 Timothy (1)
James (1)
Revelation (3)

No references in Romans.

This is rather astounding in my opinion, because Romans deals with very heavy and serious subjects involving sin, spiritual death, addiction, and rebellion against righteousness. If you talk to most fundamentalist Christians about these same subjects, they will mention the devil very often, speaking of the devil’s grip on humanity, demons that need to be cast out, how the devil is laughing at us, and so forth. But Paul managed to address these same subjects without dragging the devil into them. Given that Romans has the deepest perspective on human nature that I have found in the Bible, I think that the devil is much less involved with humanity than what Christian Fundamentalism leads you to think. Most of the personal problems that people encounter are due to inherent issues embedded in human nature, not the direct influence of the devil.

The only reference to the devil in Romans comes in the final chapter:

Romans 16:20 – “The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

This single reference to Satan in Romans speaks of his ultimate defeat, not his dominion.

Some of the more liberal types of Christianity have criticized what they see as excessive focus on the devil in fundamentalist teaching. In response, some progressive Christians have proposed that the devil is not an actual entity, but rather just a personification of evil. I still think that conclusion is too much of a stretch. There are extremes of evil which I do not believe come from human nature alone. I think the New Testament identifies some situations that indicate involvement from an evil supernatural entity.

One such situation is demon possession, which is described in Luke 8:26-29,

“Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. As he [Jesus] stepped out on land, a man of the city who had demons met him. For a long time he had worn no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he fell down before him and shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me”— for Jesus had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (For many times it had seized him; he was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.)”

As described in this passage, demon possession involves extremely erratic behavior, not everyday problems.

Another situation where the Bible suggests involvement of the devil is when a person makes a deliberate rejection of Christ, knowing in their heart that Christ’s message is true but refusing to accept it.

John Chapter 8 records a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees,

“’[Jesus stated] You are indeed doing what your father does.’ They said to him, ‘We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires” (John 8:41-44).

The Pharisees were not skeptics of religion or people raised in another religion. Instead, they believed in the God of the Old Testament, and they knew the prophetic writings that spoke of Christ, but they refused to accept Christ because He criticized their hypocritical lifestyles. These are the people whom Jesus said were children of the devil.

So, in summary, I do believe there are situations where there is demonic influence, but I think it is less pervasive than what Fundamentalists have depicted. Earlier I mentioned the Pentecostal writing on spiritual warfare that I read growing up; I still believe that knowledge about our authority in Christ is important because one day we could find ourselves in a situation where there’s a demonic presence. However, I do not recommend looking for the devil everywhere as that can lead to unnecessary anxiety or an obsessive-compulsive approach to spiritual warfare.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 5

Leave a reply

In this last installment of the series, I’ll mention a form of media which I have termed “Christian subculture.” This involves material such as movies, music, and novels that have an obviously Christian message and seek to reinforce Christian beliefs to the audience. I do not have much to say about this genre of media. My only caution would be to avoid using this kind of media to make certain doctrines seem more attractive to people. I think that Christians should think for themselves about what they believe, and I do not want for people to accept doctrines they’re not sure about just because the doctrine looked cool in a movie or a song. But as long as it’s not done in a manipulative way, I think it is good to have media with strong Biblical themes.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 4

Leave a reply

We’re continuing the series on Christianity and popular culture, and this time, I want to discuss the approach of reinterpreting themes of secular media to fit Christian principles. This approach is very prevalent in the Contemporary Christian Music industry, although it has been applied throughout history, including the early church, and even in the Bible itself.

Let’s consider Christian pop music. The lyrics of Christian pop music are often similar to their secular counterparts. The Christian songs about God’s love sound a lot like secular love songs. The songs about resisting the devil and temptation sound like the post-breakup songs of the secular music scene. In other words, the themes of secular music become an analogy for Christian themes. An advantage to this approach is that you make Biblical themes more relatable to people who are interested in spiritual life but not theologically minded. Instead of bewildering people with theological detail, you can give them a practical illustration to help guide their lives.

Let’s examine the love story analogy in detail. Jesus is the “perfect boyfriend/girlfriend” who made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up His life us. By doing so, He inspired us to run from our old, bad lover (Satan) and commit our lives to Him instead. This way of thinking about the Gospel can be supported by Biblical passages such as:

John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

Romans 5:10 – “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.”

When the Gospel is understood in terms of human love, some traditional Christian doctrines get reinterpreted. For example, judgment and condemnation take on a new dynamic. Instead of the hellfire preached by “classic” Evangelicals to depict God’s justice, contemporary Evangelicalism tends to imply that unbelievers are not condemned by God, but rather, their condemnation is the anguish and despair that they experience when they isolate themselves from God and His love. In other words, all those sad pop songs about loneliness become a metaphor for hell.

I don’t have a problem with the love story analogy thus far. But here is where I think it steps over the line: When people like myself come out and suggest that Christ’s death and resurrection actually has the power to save all mankind in the fullness of time, they get argued down with the claim that God cannot save everybody because He would be forcing a relationship on people. There is this idea that a relationship of love cannot exist without the possibility of one entity eternally resisting the other. Whether people agree or disagree with me on human destiny is irrelevant to the topic under consideration. I am just trying to highlight what I think are influences for popular culture on theological debate. If the romantic analogy is taken literally, some Scriptures have to be reinterpreted from their face value meaning. For example:

Romans 9:16-21 – “It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?”

I have never heard a love song with lyrics like this. Now, I am willing to admit that when the Scripture speaks of God hardening one’s heart, it does not have to mean that God specifically determined the state of one’s heart or the course of one’s life (although I personally see predestination in Romans 9, some other commentators do not – see the links at the end of the article). However, this semantic issue does not obscure the core idea that pops out at me, which is that utilization of our will is not the ultimate, driving force behind our lives, for we cannot make ourselves set our will in just any way imaginable. I think that is the key idea in Romans 9; without it, the whole chapter doesn’t make sense to me. Whether God is involved or uninvolved with that is a secondary matter in my opinion.

Notice that, in the passage above, Paul predicted an objection to what he just said: “Why then does he [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Suppose that Paul really meant to say, “God makes us fully capable of either accepting or rejecting Him.” If that is what Paul meant, I think he would have responded to the objection by saying something to that effect. But instead, Paul responds with,

“But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

To make Paul’s writing fit with the type of free will found in the love story analogy, you have reinterpret Romans 9 (and other similar Scriptures) to a considerable degree.

Having said everything in this article, I should emphasize that I do not have a “problem” with the Contemporary Christian Music industry. They create songs with great analogies for Biblical themes. I just think we need to remember that the lyrical themes are analogies. If taken too literally, they can cause confusion or frustration. In my own life I have had many spiritual analogies which were helpful at a particular time. However, as circumstances in my life change, prompting me to look at certain Scriptures a more closely, I periodically realize that my analogies need to evolve. It’s an ongoing, lifelong process. All you need to realize is that it’s an unfolding process, and the developments in understanding will unfold on their own.

Commentaries on Romans 9:
http://www.freewill-predestination.com/romans9.html
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/romans_9.html

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 3

2 Replies

In this series, we are looking at relationships between Christianity and popular culture. This post will consider references to Christianity in media that is basically secular. This relationship is sometimes found in political commentaries that express a favorable attitude toward Christianity. Also, you may find some movies which have Christian characters and dialogue, and seem favorable to Christianity overall, but are not marketed as Christian movies in an exclusive sense.

So, is this a good approach to popular culture? Should Christians support this kind of media by recommending it to others or financially contributing to organizations that produce it? Should Christians create such media online as a form of outreach? Well, that’s a decision for individuals to make, but in this post I want to highlight the potential advantages and disadvantages to consider when making that decision.

So, what are some advantages of such media? I think the biggest benefit is that you can get people thinking about Christianity and stimulate curiosity about what the Bible says. Some people are rather averse to attempts at religious proselytization, but this kind of media could introduce Christianity in a way that does not feel threatening. Another advantage is enabling Christians to have public influence in ways they ordinarily could not.

As for disadvantages, I think the biggest disadvantage is that, in order to portray Christianity in secular media, you have to make some starting assumptions about Christianity. Since you are not supposed to talk about religion in secular media, you have to frame religion in terms of something that you are allowed to talk about. For example, a typical starting assumption is that God is love, and that since most people want to believe in a God of love, you can present Christianity in a way that could appeal to everybody. Or, another starting assumption is that the Christianity causes people to live responsibly and is thus good for society as a whole, justifying a favorable attitude from the government. Or, another starting assumption is that the United States has historically been a Christian nation, so a favorable political stance toward Christianity is merely an attempt to stay true to the country’s founding principles.

So, let’s consider the starting assumption that God is love. To say that God is love – what does that mean? For me, to be comforted by that claim in and of itself, I would have to project my own ideas of what love is onto God. But where does the Bible fit into this? Instead of starting with the idea that God is love, my approach would be to consider what the Bible says about the plan of God for mankind, and then decide whether God is love or not. Suppose you did that and came to the conclusion that God is not love after all? What now? Well, I would step back and reconsider one’s interpretation of the Bible to see if there is another reasonable interpretation which takes all relevant Scriptures into account but leads to a more loving portrayal of God.

But obviously, this approach to Christianity is not suitable for secular media because it entails deep theological matters that not everybody could be expected to agree upon. When we introduce Christianity with certain starting assumptions, people tend to build upon those starting assumptions with their own ideas. But are the advantages of presenting Christianity in secular media greater than this disadvantage? That is for you to decide.

Now let’s consider the starting assumption that Christianity makes people responsible and is thus good for society as a whole. A potential consequence of this assumption is that it could diminish Christianity to a self-reform program or a social agenda. Now, I do believe in the power of Christ to change the lives of believers, but what is the process by which that happens? I think it is the result of faith in a spiritual process involving Christ’s death and resurrection, which I described in my series titled “Being a Real Christian.” This process is probably not a topic that could be portrayed in secular media.

Lastly, I want to consider the claim that the United States has historically been a Christian nation. This claim rests on historical observations of visible, public Christian influence. However, when using this observation to justify political agendas, there is the risk of reducing Christianity to a set of historically observable traits. But these historically observable traits are not a full representation of Biblical principles, so are these the elements that we want to brand Christianity with? That is for you to decide.

So, having read all of this, don’t get the idea that I am opposed to portrayals of Christianity in secular media. As I said earlier, there definitely are advantages to this approach to popular culture. But as with all approaches, some potential drawbacks exist, and you can decide for yourself whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 2

Leave a reply

In this series, we are looking at different ways that Christians have approached secular pop culture. This post will examine the approach of watching secular media from a Christian perspective and comparing themes with Biblical principles. First off, what are the advantages of this approach to pop culture? The first advantage is that we do not have to shut ourselves away from all secular entertainment to avoid unbiblical influences. Human nature does not respond to blanket prohibitions very well (Romans 7), and insisting that Christians avoid secular entertainment altogether could intensify desires to see it, resulting in mental obsessions. Furthermore, Christians who create music, literature, or movies can advance their skills by incorporating stylistic elements from a wide range of sources.

The second advantage is that, by watching secular media with a Christian perspective in mind, we can blur the distinction between our recreational life and our spiritual life. 2 Corinthians 5:7 says to “walk by faith, not by sight.” If we think that we are closer to God when praying or reading the Bible, and farther from God when entertaining ourselves, then we are, to some extent, living by sight instead of faith, because we let activities we see ourselves doing influence how we perceive our relationship with God. As I described in Part 6 of my series “Being a Real Christian,” for those who understand the message of Romans, holiness is not about what we are doing as much as the focus of our minds. If, by looking at secular movies, music, or books, we can remind ourselves of certain Scriptures by comparing or contrasting themes with the Bible, our attention is pointed in the right direction.

So then, are there disadvantages to watching secular media with a Biblical mindset? Well, there are a couple risks if this approach is over relied on for spiritual development. The first is that our theological focus can become a bit shallow if we generalize Biblical themes to a level that can be demonstrated in secular media. The second potential problem is superfluously comparing secular media with the Bible. For instance, one could develop a tendency to see something in a movie, and then declare it Biblical or unbiblical based on certain Scriptures, without considering the deeper or more diverse perspectives expressed in the Bible itself.

The last potential disadvantage would be if a secular work has immoral content so pervasive that it could cause one’s mind to get obsessed with immorality.

In general though, as long as the approach is not overly relied on, I think that observing secular media from a Christian perspective is a good way that Christians can approach popular culture. In the next post, we will consider portrayals of Christianity within secular media itself.

Debates over Doctrine: It’s About More Than Who’s Right

Leave a reply

Over the centuries, numerous Christian theologians and ministers have tried to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bible. Some have done so through systematic reasoning, and others have sought direct revelation from God. Among both groups, many different doctrinal positions exist on the same subjects. But there remains the notion in the minds of many Christians that, among all the different teachings out there, one of them is correct, and the goal is to find it, either by reasoning or revelation.

When someone thinks they have found the correct teaching, the natural response is to explain to other people why it is correct and refute arguments against it. However, if you have ever engaged in this yourself, you probably realize that the chance of the people you’re talking to saying, “That makes sense, I admit I was wrong” is pretty slim. If they ever say it, it’s probably years afterward. And there’s a reason why.

Underlying a person’s theology is an accumulation of life experiences. As much as one may try to have an unbiased reading of Scripture, because the Scriptures are not written like a systematic textbook, one’s personal experiences shape the interpretation. Even among those who claim spiritual revelation of the right interpretation, testimonies and doctrines vary considerably (although you’ll have to look beyond your particular branch of Christianity to see this), so apparently personal factors are still at play.

Thus, to tell someone that their doctrinal position is erroneous is essentially telling them that their life experiences have given them a faulty view of reality, and that’s hard to convince people of. Now, it is true that we all have limited knowledge and vision; our own lives do not tell the whole story of reality. But it is nearly impossible to acknowledge limitations in our conception of reality unless we actually experience that limitation firsthand.

It may be, that when we leave this life and gain a more comprehensive view of reality, we discover that the absolute truths about God, salvation, or life beyond this world, even things we considered fundamental to our faith, are different from what we had intellectually perceived in this life. But does this mean that efforts to correctly understand the Bible are futile, or that a certain interpretation is just as good as any alternative? I don’t think so.

Even if the absolute reality is beyond our comprehension, we can get core elements and principles right by studying the Bible carefully. Any sincere interpretation of the Bible contains some truth, as well as some deficiencies. Problems arise when people frame their lives around the deficiencies. Throughout church history, whenever new theological movements arose (such as the Protestant Reformation, the Great Awakenings, the Charismatic movement, etc.), the truths contained in those theologies dominated at first, leading adherents to think that the whole theology was Biblical. But what eventually happened to those movements (and what sometimes happens to Christian fundamentalism today) is that the “deficient” elements gained more prominence. But even though such theologies don’t seem to work for everyone and cause some people to leave Christianity altogether, adherents continue to promote everything in their theology because it worked in the past, and they assume the problem is with people today.

Now, I am NOT trying to say that we should modify our doctrines to fit the prevailing culture. Rather, I am suggesting that as times change, deficiencies in theologies, which always existed but were previously overlooked or diminished, can become more apparent, and I think churches should consider revisiting their doctrines to see if they can use the Bible to express truth more fully. The Bible is not as narrow-minded and intolerant as many people today think it is.

So, I think the goal of studying the Bible is to gain a more diversified perspective – to avoid getting overly fixated on certain subjects in a way that exaggerates misunderstandings, and to gain a perspective that contains more truth about reality than error. For me, the goal of theological debate is not to convince someone that he or she is wrong and I am 100% right. After two thousand years of doctrinal debates, how can I be sure I got everything right? Rather, the goal of debate is to convince the audience that my position is worth consideration. So, with doctrinal articles that I post online, I am not trying to prove opponents wrong, I just want for people passing by the internet, who are struggling to reconcile what their denomination has taught with their personal experience, to see another option to consider.

Some Thoughts on National Morality

Leave a reply

I finished the series of posts on what being a real Christian means, and I feel that a good follow-up topic would be a subject of much discussion among Evangelicals today, which is whether the United States as a whole is turning away from Biblical morality and will face various crises as a result. Now, before we start, I should mention that this is not a political essay or a commentary on current events.

I think that Romans Chapters 1 and 2 have a lot of relevance to the subject of national morality. Here’s Romans 1: 28-32:

“And since they [Gentile pagans] did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.”

Sound familiar? You have probably heard of many people and places in the U.S. today where those characteristics are found. Preachers may cite Hollywood, social liberals, public schools, college fraternities, and so on. Basically, it’s the so-called worldly people. But at the opening of Romans 2, Paul turns the tables against the churchgoing culture:

2:1-4: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”

I think that passage is supposed to make Christians say, “Huh? How can you say I do the same things as ___? When was the last time you saw me in a sexy music video? I’ve never committed murder. I’ve never said anything blasphemous about God; I don’t even use His name in exclamatory outbursts. You think I’m proud and boastful? I’m not the one with expensive cars or clothes. And envy? Good grief, I’m still happy with my flip phone!”

Well, the problem with those self-justifications is that Biblical morality, especially in the New Testament, goes beyond outwards acts. Furthermore, many passages challenge Christians to ask themselves whether their lifestyle indicates that they are true believers in the first place as there are both sins of commission and sins of omission (James 4:13-17, 1 John 3:17). I do acknowledge that there are Christian who genuinely live out Biblical morality, both internally and externally. If your conscience testifies that you are at least sincerely trying to live according to Scripture in every aspect of life (Rom. 2:15), then what I am about to say does not apply to you.

Paul wrote in Romans 2 that “in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself . . . do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”

As for me, my conscience does not assure me that, if the nation were to fall because of its deeds, that I would be spared because of my deeds. I’m a rather introspective person, and I have seen things within myself that do not go over too well with certain Scriptures. Although my sins of commission may not be too long, my sins of omission is probably a longer list. This is why, I personally cannot say that the country will decline because of its deeds. If I say that, I am predicting the same fate for myself. This is not a matter of national unity. If I say that some guy in New Zealand will lose God’s protection because of sins in his life, I’m saying that I myself will lose God’s protection.

Now, if you’ve read the Bible carefully and your conscience tells you that you really are living as the Bible instructs, then you have truly overcome the world, and you have the right to say anything you want about it. You can count on God’s blessing regardless of what happens around you. Some of you out there have reached this point. But what about people like myself, and probably many of you as well, who are not so sure that we make the cut? Is our fate tied to the United States? Well, I believe it doesn’t have to be that way, and there is a special message in the Book of Romans for such people, which is what I wrote about in my “Being a Real Christian” series.

When we come to realize how Christ died and rose again not only as a substitutionary atonement but also to set us free from sin’s control over our lives, and we ask God to help us experience this freedom, it is like God sets us apart from the world and starts a special process in us. Sometimes, intermediate steps involve having certain problems when other people aren’t (Hebrews 12:6-8). But, it’s all about helping us learn deeper truths about life and becoming what we were made to be. And at this point, our future is not tied to any nation.

So, then, if I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist regarding nation affairs, is there a framework to pray for the country? I believe there is, although I do not pray with complete faith that any temporal event will happen or not happen. After all, 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to Satan as the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), which I take to mean that neither myself nor God can directly force a change in circumstances in a way that bypasses human correspondence. So, I instead pray with faith that, in some way, there will be individuals who experience God’s redemptive processes and come to know the freedom that they can experience in Christ. I do also pray about temporal events as God’s guidance can sometimes influence people in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-3), but my faith is not hinged on any course of events.

Thus, my focus is on individuals rather than the abstract concept of a nation. I want for individuals to be able to gain new insights on life and the Christian faith, so that some people who previously rejected Christianity may see it with new lenses, and that some people who are already believers may gain a deeper perspective that will help them in life, and that regardless of what national events occur, God’s work in these ways will be carried out for certain people. Although I cannot know what will happen to the “nation,” I do know that every day there are people who come into the Christian faith, and Christians who gain new insights from resources made available by preachers and authors, and I pray that this work of God will continue moving forward. As Christ himself said (Matt. 7:7), “search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.”

Being a Real Christian – Part 5

Leave a reply

In Part 1, I mentioned what often happens when we try to change our ways. Although a small percentage of us will succeed, most will not see a meaningful, sustained difference. And I think that in Romans 7, Paul describes why that is the case. It took me many years as a Christian to see that Paul is actually admitting the difficulty that we all face when we try to change ourselves. It was too hard to believe that the Bible was acknowledging these things.

Look at Romans 7:4-5, “In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.”

Notice that Paul mentions “sinful passions aroused by the law.” This is why changing one’s lifestyle through self-motivation can be impossible. You set rules for yourself, but when you push yourself to follow the rules, desires to do the opposite are also energized, so the net result is little or no change, or even a negative difference. The “just do it” mentality breaks down.

Some have said that when Paul refers to the law, he is only referring to the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, and that he is not referring to Biblical morality. If we were talking about the epistle to the Galatians, that is probably the right interpretation (I may write an article on that later). However, in Romans, the concept of law encompasses more than religious rituals. The problem that Paul addresses of law stimulating desire to do the opposite, thus nullifying one’s efforts, applies to laws of any type, and I think subsequent passages in Romans 7 make this clear.

Paul writes, “What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.” (Romans 7:7-8).

More evidence that trying to follow laws can keep us trapped in bad habits comes when Paul has to address the misconception that the law itself is sin. If Paul were not saying that good laws can trigger bad psychological reactions leading to sin, why would anyone come to the bizarre conclusion that the law itself is sinful? Also notice that Paul uses the law forbidding coveting as an example. This is the ultimate proof that, in Romans, Paul’s references to law are not confined to ceremonial rituals.

Looking at verses 19-20, “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

Here Paul is describing a human condition which further explains why the “just do it” mentality can fail us. Notice that Paul says, “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.” Notice that he used the word “cannot.” Some people say that we should stop using the word “cannot.” But Paul used that word! Many think that if we fail it’s because we’re not trying hard enough. In a sense, that may be true. However, if we’re under a mentality of law, antagonistic parts of our minds will eventually cause us to stop trying. At least, this is what my personal experience has shown.

So, if imposing rules on ourselves causes these problems, should we stop trying to follow those rules and just do whatever we are inclined to do instead? I think we need to find a balance between two situations, the first being insistence on doing what’s wrong even if the temptation to do it isn’t all that strong. This approach makes existing problems worse. The other situation is forcing ourselves to continue noble but vain efforts that contribute to a vicious cycle. I think that Romans 8, which we’ll look at next time, has some clues for how to find a balance between those two situations.

Being a Real Christian – Part 4

Leave a reply

In Romans Chapters 3-5, Paul discusses how justification is by faith rather than works. The concept of salvation by faith is mentioned many times in the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s writing and the Gospel of John. But the question which arises from this concept is, are works or obedience still required of us? Are we free to do whatever we want to?

As much as different Christian sects have tried to streamline answers to this question, I actually find that the New Testament gives at least two different perspectives. First, let’s look at how the Apostle James approaches this dilemma.

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works” (James 2:14-22).

I think James is saying that faith can only exist when you are acting in obedience to God. He uses the obedience of Abraham to illustrate this. The point is not that you can “earn” your salvation by doing certain works. Rather, the idea is that you are saved by faith, but you have to follow God’s commandments in order for that faith to be genuine faith. But it is important to consider exactly what the faith that James speaks of entails. In James’s epistle, the only references to Christ are on two occasions when James refers to Jesus as Lord. Thus, the “faith” that James refers to, which is dead without works, seems to simply be a claim of faith in the Divinity of Christ. Contrast that with Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in which the whole epistle is centered on what Christ accomplished for humanity through His death and resurrection. Thus, Paul’s references to “faith” encompass a lot more than James’s references to faith alone.

Getting back to the question of, if we’re justified by faith, does it matter what we do, take a look at Paul’s answer to that question in Romans.

“What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:1-11).

This is quite a different perspective from what James wrote. James’s answer had a very practical nature, highlighting the obedience of Abraham and Rahab to show that in order to have true faith you must do works in obedience to God.

In contrast to that practical explanation, Paul’s explanation is rather mystical, speaking of being joined with Christ in His death and resurrection and thus dying to sin and being raised to a new life where sin cannot dominate us. It is a very transformative message, and what Paul says is that we should consider ourselves to be vivified with Christ and free from sin’s dominion. What Paul implies in Chapters 7 and 8 is that believing in this transformation, rather than self-motivation to change one’s ways, is necessary to truly experiencing freedom from sin’s power. The next article takes a look at this in more detail.

Being a Real Christian – Part 3

Leave a reply

In Romans 3:23-25, Paul reaches the conclusion that “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”

Remember that back in Romans 2:6-7, Paul wrote that “[God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”

Also 2:14-16: “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.”

In Chapter 2, Paul is very much indicating that it is possible to be saved on the basis of works. It is true that all have sinned (3:23), but Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Also note 1 John 1:7, “If we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” Also consider Hebrews 10:26, “If we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”

The idea I see from Romans 2, 1st John, and Hebrews is that as long as people are not persisting in sin against the conviction of their conscience, they have forgiveness of their sins through Christ’s atonement. Romans 2 indicates that this principle applies to both Jews (who I think, in our day, are people associated with Christianity), and Greeks/Gentiles (who, I think, are everybody else you encounter today).

So, then, why be a believer? Well, notice that in Romans 3:23-25, quoted at the top of this article, Paul writes that those who have faith in Christ are justified by grace as a gift. This faith puts a person in a unique state. The forgiveness described in Romans 2, 1st John, and Hebrews is contingent on pursuing good works and following one’s conscience. However, the justification described in Romans 3 is a gift by grace, meaning that it is not merited by one’s performance. This unique state of justification cannot be attained by works given that all have sinned. The fact that this is not attained by works is described by Paul in Romans Chapters 3-5.

Now, what I am about to mention next is not widely taught among Christians, but I believe we’ll see later in Romans that the faith which brings a person into this unique state is a specific faith that goes beyond the baseline faith required to join the body of Christ. I think Romans 6-8 illustrates this, and we’ll look at that next time.