Francis Schaeffer and The Unity of the Bible

Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) was Presbyterian minister and one of the titans of 20th century reformed theology. In 1975, he wrote a remarkable little book called No Final Conflict. Unfortunately it is out of print-- I was able to find a copy on Amazon’s “out-of-print” network

Schaeffer attacks existential theology, which holds that the Bible is infallible only in spiritual matters, not when it comes to history or science. It is a position in some favor, as you might expect, with believing scientists. What is surprising is that it also has among its proponents non-scientist theologians who also characterize themselves as evangelicals.

Schaeffer bitterly opposes this view:

"Evangelism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of scripture and those who do not." (p. 13)

Of interest to this writer, Schaeffer says that we must accept as infallible the creation and pre-Abrahamic history of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

I am delighted to agree with Francis Schaeffer. In my own, less cogent style I put it this way in one of my earliest blogs:

• When science and the Bible disagree, the Bible is always right.
  
  
• When science and Christians disagree, sometimes science is right.
  

The Unity of Genesis

Schaeffer argues that Genesis teaches theological truth throughout and one cannot simply discard the first 11 chapters as irrelevant prehistory and science (cosmology). He argues for the unity of Genesis on both a theological and literary basis. He notes, quite rightly, that the writers of the New Testament (including the words of Jesus) show that they took the creation account and the historic existence of Adam and Eve as fact. See, for example, Matthew 19:4-5, Luke 3:38, Romans 5:12 (there are many others).

Schaeffer’s point, if I may restate it, is this: due to this massive NT referencing (as historic fact) of the early chapters of Genesis, the credibility of the entire Bible (including the purely “religious” parts) rests on the fact that Adam and Eve were actual historic people without human parents. He gives this warning:

”…those who are taught a weakened view [of Genesis] by their professors almost always carry it further into the whole Bible and are left really shaken as far as any real basis for their Christianity is concerned.”(p. 15)

As for science, Schaeffer noted:

”There is no reason, therefore, to consider science free from the propositions set forth in the Scripture.” (p. 22)

As to whether the Bible is a scientific textbook, he says that it is not because science is not the central theme of the Bible. However, Schaeffer adds, that does not mean we cannot learn some science from the Bible. He likens it to angelology: the Bible leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions concerning angels; nevertheless we do learn quite a bit about them.

The Bible does not give us exhaustive truth, specifically, about the things of the cosmos, and therefore, science has a real function. Also, science, as a study of general revelation, has shown us things that have caused us to understand the Bible better.(p. 24)

Schaeffer on the Earth: is it Old or is it Young?

Given all this you might expect that Schaeffer would state emphatically that we must affirm the literal six (24 hour) days view of creation. You would be wrong. (This must be really annoying to those PCA Presbyteries that seek to require such an affirmation from pastoral candidates, as it must be hard to explain why Schaeffer would not be qualified to be a pastor.)

Schaeffer lists seven “freedoms” we have in the area of Cosmology. By freedoms, he means that in his opinion one could hold one of these views and affirm the truth of the entire Bible in a self consistent manner. These are not mutually exclusive models of creation: some are broad, some narrow. They all relate to creation. Some of these views are undoubtedly wrong but, according to Schaeffer, none can be ruled out apart from dogma.

Here they are, greatly summarized, and without comment. (In Schaeffer’s book he does comment on each view.)

1. The universe was created recently, but with the appearance of being old. God had a purpose, which he has not revealed, to create a universe that appears to be billions of years old.
   
   
2. There is a possibility of a gap between verses one and two, or two and three in Genesis 1. Schaeffer make some interesting comments about this in terms of Satan’s fall and C. S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.
   
   
3. The days in Genesis are “long” days.
   
   
4. The flood affected the geological data.
   
   
5. A different (based on the Hebrew) interpretation of the word kind in Genesis 1, e.g. Gen 1:11. He says that this word is not necessarily synonymous with the modern word species.
   
   
6. There may have been animal death before the fall, but it was not from being hunted by other animals or in a struggle. It was like a dog dying quietly at a fireplace or a leaf falling from a tree.
   
   
7. Only the word bara must mean an absolute new beginning. This word is used for creation three times: The creation of the universe out of nothing, the creation of conscious life, and the creation of man. The creation of other things, as when God said “Let there be light”, use more general words that might imply a sequence.
   

As far as the old/young earth question goes, when discussing item 3 above, Schaeffer writes:

”If anyone wonders what my own position is, I am really not sure whether the days in Genesis 1 should be taken as twenty four hours or periods. It seems to me that from a study of the Bible itself one could hold either position.” (p. 30)

Absolutes

To his list of freedoms he adds two absolutes: At a minimum, at the three uses of the word bara as described earlier there was a discontinuity between what was before and what followed. Second, the fact that Adam was historic and Eve was made from Adam.

It makes me happy that…

I find myself in total, absolute, agreement with Schaeffer. Not that he is infallible, or that my concurrence carries any weight. It is simply that it is nice to be in agreement (for a change).

Y'all have a glorious weekend.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

Can I Lose My Salvation?

Certainly we Calvinists say the answer is an emphatic no. We are so sure about it that it has earned its own letter in our defining acrostic:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

It is, of course, perseverance of the saints I am referring to. It means that once you are saved, you are saved forever. Let’s look a some verses that support this.

Implied Perseverance

There are many verses that, through a little deduction, imply that we cannot lose our salvation. All those that promise eternal life for the saved are in this category:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:26, NASB)

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24, NASB)

This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. (1 John 2:25, NASB)


The logic is straightforward: eternal life is, well, eternal. You cannot have eternal life for just a few years. Eternal life goes hand-in-hand with salvation; you cannot have one without the other. Ergo, salvation is once-and-for-all as well.

If you are a believer, you already possess eternal life; it is a promise, not a carrot used to keep you in line. That way of thinking leads to salvation by works.

Explicit Perseverance

Some verses just simply hit the nail on the head:

"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?
"If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish. (Matthew 18:12-14, NASB)


[Clarification as requested by the Joyful Christian
I take this to mean that the sheep are believers. None can really wander away from the flock forever. One might object that the "if" in "If it turns out that he finds it" as indicating that the return is not guaranteed. I think it just a way of expressing the point, because for human shepherds and actual sheep it is indeed true that some are lost forever. If this were the only verse that spoke of the fate of "backsliders", then I would not be convinced of perseverance of the saints. Taken with all other evidence, I take it to be quite corroborating.

If someone was saved, then Christ suffered on the cross for his sin. If that person loses his salvation, then Christ's suffering was in vain. May it never be! ]

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of hand. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "I and the Father are one." (John 10: 27-30, NASB)

Christ will have all those whom have been effectually called. None will stray and be lost forever. We worship an awesome God.

And as if if that weren’t enough

We are also sealed by the Holy Spirit:

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Eph 4:30, NASB)

[Clarification as requested by the Joyful Christian
To me this verse says that when the Spirit indwells us, it is forever. I suggest that the word sealed implies permanence, but that is subject to interpretation. Again, it is a preponderance of verses that leads me to accept the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, not any single verse in isolation.]

Yeah but what about…

We all know about some guy who appeared to have been a genuine believer, then all of a sudden he quit coming to church. Later we learn that he became a transgendered devil-worshipping biker enviro-nazi NEA-supporter and was promptly elected to the California State Assembly (where he was often identified as a “moderate”). What to say to say about such a creature without being arrested for a hate crime? Well, the only possibilities are the two obvious ones: Either he never really was saved or he is still saved and will, in time, cease his backsliding and return to the fold.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.(1 John 2:19, NASB)

Secret Mission

Now that I snuck in the ‘P’ there are only four more letters until my work here is done.

---

Flattery

I can think of nothing to say about praise vs. flattery (see this and follow the links). However, I do remember hearing a cutesy pair of definitions of flattery and gossip.

Gossip: What you say about someone behind his back that you will not say to his face.

Flattery: What you say about someone to his face that you will not say behind his back.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

Forgiveness

Yesterday I attended my regular Tuesday “kick-start” men’s Bible study at 6:30 am. We got into a discussion about forgiveness. Amazingly we got into a debate on whether we must forgive those who sin against us. We agreed on two points:

1. If someone who has sinned against us comes to us with a contrite spirit, we must forgive.
   
   
2. We can forgive someone who is unrepentant or simply unavailable (e.g., a parent, now dead, who abandoned you), and while the forgiveness is not efficacious, it very well may be (a) therapeutic for the forgiver (to prevent bitterness) and (b) a good witness (if done graciously) (Question: is this forgiveness or just an emotional release?)
   

Surprisingly we did not agree on the answer to the following: Are we as believers obligated to forgive those who have sinned against us but do not repent. And is the answer different depending on whether the transgressor is a believer or not?

Some of the verses (with parallels in other Gospels) that seem to favor blanket forgiveness are:

For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. (Matthew 6:14-15, NASB)

My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:35, NASB)

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21-22, NASB)

The first of these, unlike the remaining two, does not say “brother”, which normally signifies a fellow believer. Maybe it is implied. None of these say anything about the transgressor having a contrite heart. But maybe that is assumed.

Another interesting verse which would seem to support the broad view of forgiveness is Jesus’ plea, on the cross, for the soldiers:


But Jesus was saying, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. (Luke 23:34, NASB)


It seems manifest that they were not all believers with a contrite heart. Yet Jesus asked the Father to forgive them.

Narrow View

On the other hand, arguing for a more narrow policy, we read

"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4, NASB)

This, in some sense, is the most straightforward statement. It seems to state clearly that you must forgive a brother (fellow believer) if he repents. But first he should be rebuked! What does this mean? Are “brothers” held to a higher standard, so that repentance is required of a fellow believer before forgiveness is mandated? Are we to forgive the heathen even if they do not show repentance? Or are we not even obligated to forgive unbelievers at all?

Asked differently, is this verse a summary of how we are to forgive or just instruction for dealing with other believers?

I dinna ken

This business of forgiveness seems like a simple question that should have an obvious answer. At the start of the Bible study I thought I was clear about this—but now I am quite confused. Help would be appreciated.

For some reason it reminds me of something from my days as a professor. The best student comment I ever saw on a course evaluation was: “This is a good professor. I learned more than I had intended.”

Another Messianic Prophesy—Christ’s Ministry begins in Galilee

But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
The people who walk in darkness
Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
The light will shine on them.(Isaiah 9:1-2, NASB For fulfillment, see Matthew 4:13-16)

Something Completely Different

From the Physicists-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands department, look here. On the other hand, for a refutation, look here.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

Messianic Prophesies

I am starting a study of Messianic prophecies. It seems like a good idea to share some with the millions tens of readers of this blog.

Strong’s Concordance lists about 115 “Prophesies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus”. Below I present just a few that cover most of the significant events of Christ’s life.

Where would Jesus be born?

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2, NASB)

Virgin Birth

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, NASB)

Jesus’ Return from Egypt

When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1, NASB-- For fulfillment of this prophesy, see Matthew 27:35)

The Deity of Christ

There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:7, NASB)

I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. (1 Chronicles 17:13, NASB)

John the Baptist: Christ’s Messenger in the Desert

A voice is calling, Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3, NASB)

Christ Teaching in Parables

I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, (Psalms 78:2, NASB-- For fulfillment of this prophesy, see Matthew 13:35)

Christ Crucified

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5, NASB)

his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for (2) he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you (3) do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:23, NASB)

Casting Lots for His Clothes

They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots. (Psalm 22:18, NASB-- For fulfillment of this prophesy, see Matthew 27:35)

He is Risen!

For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. (Psalms 16:10, NASB)

Pentacost

"It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. "Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.(Joel 2: 28-28, NASB)

One Just Has to Wonder

I do not know how anyone could read these (and more than 100 others) and not be convinced that Christ was the promised Messiah and the Son of God. Actually I do know: faith itself is a gift of grace and not of our own doing:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8, NIV).

Thank you, Lord, for quickening me. I was dead with nothing of my own to contribute except my sins and still you granted me mercy beyond compare.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

God is not a Superman

There are some phrases I really don’t like to hear at the start of a sentence:

• If I were God…
  
  
• How could a loving God…
  
  
• My God would never…
  
  
• The God I worship…
  

There are of course many additional variants. And these don’t always mean something objectionable is about to follow, but often (some more than others) they do. What usually follows one of these opening phrases is a description (explicit or implied) of how that person wants God to be, despite what it says in the Bible.

• How could a loving God allow a school bus full of children to be involved in a fatal collision?
  
  
• The God I worship does not punish people because they were born a certain way.
  
  
• If I were God I wouldn’t allow so much hate and evil in the world.
  

These are all devices for someone to remake a god in their image and ignore the God revealed in the Holy Scriptures. And the God they invent is usually a superman, or actually a super man. That is, imagine a person with elevated doses of all the best human qualities: loving, tolerant, compassionate, kind, gentle, patient, forgiving-- all raised to a superhuman degree. Throw in some limited power to create, but also toss in some grandfatherly sadness that there is much evil in the universe that he can’t control (how else to explain child molesters). There you have God as a superman.

As I said before in this blog, It takes an extreme sort of faith to modify God from what the Bible teaches. Making him “nicer” is only one of an infinite number of possibilities. Why are they so sure he is a loving, tolerant, but somewhat impotent deity-- dismayed by the evil in the world? Maybe he is the source of the evil. How can you know in which direction to take him (away from his revealed nature)? The only thing you can do is model him on “good person”. A super man-- just like us, only better.

Believers are not immune to these phrases, sometimes using them in defense of the faith. Then they just become poor arguments that are easily negated. One I have heard many times arises in the young vs. old earth debate. Often the young earth proponent, especially if he senses he is losing the argument, will say something like “The God I worship does not need 14 billion years to create the universe, He can do it in six days.” Which may be true, but leaves you susceptible to the counter attack along the lines of “Well then, couldn’t he do it in six minutes or six seconds?”

Just writing that reminds me why I am so uncomfortable with debates between believing scientists and believing anti-scientists. They just don’t “work” very well. Although both are believers, their vastly different approaches to reasoning usually produces debates that degenerate into ad hominem attacks, often with the scientist’s salvation being questioned. Oh well, that’s what makes being a Christian and a physicist so fun.

Poor Pitiful Scientists

As we all know, evangelical Christians are the one group that it is still PC to make fun of in the media. And among Christians, scientists are the one group of whom it is considered acceptable to make sport. So I am used to getting it coming-and-going.Truth be told, however, it is always fun to be on the fringe. I have been in many discussions among Christians where somebody, not knowing my background, blasts the "pointy headed scientists". It is not unlike being a politically conservative professor, as Dr. Byron will no doubt discover.

Short Post for now

Have to cut it short in order to make a 7:00 am dental appointment. If I were god there would be no need for root canal.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

Lordship Salvation

Remember the debate about Lordship salvation? It was cast, in my opinion, along the ridiculous lines of whether Christ can be your Savior without being your Lord. Since he is Lord, it all seems a bit silly. What it really was about, in my opinion, is easy believism. One position, whose proponent’s claim is the only view true to the reformation, is that one is saved by virtue of believing in Christ and His finished work, period. The counter view (the Lordship Salvation position) is that one must also be a disciple of Christ. This is viewed by its detractors as preaching a salvation by works.

John MacArthur, a leading proponent of Lordship Salvation, stated:

"Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand. I do not believe that an incomplete presentation of the gospel--in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name; if that’s all you presented, and you didn’t talk about Lordship, and you didn’t talk about being a disciple, and you didn’t talk about repentance, and you didn’t talk about turning from sin-even an incomplete presentation of the gospel-now listen-could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that? Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about submission, they’d be coming to that submission.

"What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction? That’s the issue. And so what we have-just imagine this now!-what we have then are a lot of people who think they’re Christians. And we have a lot of churches that are run by congregational rule, which means that a lot of churches are being run by what? Non-Christians! That’s a frightening reality. I’m quite sure there are Christian organizations being operated by non-Christians."
(Emphasis added)

I agree with MacArthur. To summarize

• Both views agree that salvation is by faith alone (although some will insist on the more complete By grace through faith or By faith alone through grace alone.
  
  
• One group says that this saving faith is sufficient. And they argue that this simple message is what should be presented to non-believers.
  
  
• The other group, e.g., MacArthur, agree that faith is sufficient, but that any saving faith will always and necessarily (by grace, not through self righteous works) result in a person not “just believing” but also becoming a disciple of Christ, and so you might as well tell people the truth (as Christ did): it will not be easy to pick up your cross and follow Him.
  

Funny Prayers

Do you have any stories about humorous prayers? A few months ago, during our after-dinner family devotion, we told our 12-year-old son that it was not too soon for him to start praying for his spouse. We neglected to tell him how to do this. So when it was his turn to pray I could tell the wheels were spinning, and finally he blurted out: “Lord, send me a good woman!”

More on the Sabbath

The Joyful Christian took me to task for my post on The Sabbath. In some weird way that must ultimately reflect my own struggle with this issue, I am in general agreement with him even though, according to his words: “[we are in] complete disagreement.” However, I would like to comment on a couple of points.

• I do treat the Sabbath and Sunday as synonyms. Mostly because I think what we call the seventh day is arbitrary. My view is that one day in seven should be set aside and by convention, for most churches, it is Sunday.
  
  
• If I were in Jeffrey’s father’s church, I would not have been among those complaining about his Sunday yard work, even though I have been convicted (wasn’t hard, just like my boys' music practice) that I should not do it.
  
  
• In retrospect, my post reads like a nasty ole list O’ rules made by men. In fact it is -- but not a list I intended to apply in general, but rather what my conscience dictates to me. I do not think it is proper or wise for a church to establish a set of rules for proper conduct on the Sabbath (Sunday) with the exception that every Christian is still obligated to obey the 4th commandment.
  
  
• The question of eating food sacrificed to idols is not an idle one (pun intended). When we go to Taiwan to visit my wife’s family, we have to deal with this issue.
  

Puzzling Passages

Speaking of the Joyful Christian, he has a great post on some biblical brainteasers. Perhaps we should collect more of these (I would pitch in Jacob's wrestling match) and gather responses from various Christian bloggers and then publish a book on the results. The Collective Wisdom of the Christian Blogosphere.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

Unitarian Universalism

I have been reading the encyclopedic The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin (Hank Hanegraaff, ed.) They have provided some interesting information on Unitarian Universalism. (One complaint: the treatment of Unitarianism is relegated to an appendix—I think it should be upgraded to its own chapter in the book-proper.).

According to The Kingdom of the Cults, the number of UUs in the U.S. is thought to be comparable to (but slightly less than) the number of Muslims: about 500,000. (The number of American Muslims is often greatly exaggerated for political purposes.) In a ranking that aggregates employment, home ownership, education, and income they are at the top of the ecclesiastical food chain. In more specific terms of percentage of adherents that are college graduates, The UU’s claim 49.5% compared with Jews (46.7%), Catholics (20%), Mormons (19.2%), and Baptists (10.4%) (But we Baptists sure know how to eat!).

Also interesting is an apparent shift in UU doctrine away from the UU church I knew and loathed, which was out-and-out humanism, to, within the last 10-15 years, a doctrine heavily influenced by New Age type spiritism. It is theorized that the shift is fueled by baby boomer agnostics, now approaching the warning track of eternity, looking in all the wrong places for the meaning of life.

The UU church is even beginning to engage in evangelism, which is almost unimaginable. It is like the Mormons deciding to shut down all efforts to outreach.

In my experience, there is no person more exasperating to try to witness to than a Unitarian. And it jibes with the statistics provided by Martin. Unitarians tend to be highly educated and often respond with quiet, amused expressions that send a clear message: You are an idiot and I know it, because I am soooo smart. I have no interest in discussing this with you because you are so clearly my intellectual inferior. They have this odd mix of superiority combined with a lack of passion.

From my years as a university professor I have a suspicion, with only anecdotal supporting data, that UUs have significant influence at institutes of higher learning. Indeed many of the stories we read (with decreasing incredulousness or rather increasing numbness) about the indoctrination of college students are consistent with a UU influence on campus.

Unitarian wristband: What would Anybody Do?

Strange Calculus

I am very supportive of Israel in her struggle against terrorism (even though I am not a dispensationalist). However, there is one particular tragedy-PR gimmick that I wish they would stop: scaling the number of deaths (resulting from an act of terrorism) by the ratio of the U.S. and Israeli populations (about 42) and stating that: “it is equivalent to (fill in the number) American deaths”. For example, it the recent attack on a bus that killed 18, I heard an Israeli official say that this is equivalent to the death of 800 Americans. But deaths aren’t measured by the fraction of the population (unless to make a point about genocide), the real yardstick is still the absolute number – this tells the story in terms of the number of grieving families left behind. And it is not 42 but just one grieving American family is as tragic as one grieving Israeli family.

I grasp the point that they are trying to make, but I don’t think this is the right way to do it.

Palestinian Statehood

It think it fairly obvious, from many recent analyses, that the Palestinians view a state merely as the first step in liberating Palestine from “river to sea”, i.e., the complete destruction of Israel. However, even apart from that I would like to see more discussion on how hopeless even a “limited” Palestinian state would be. There is no precedent for a modern prosperous Arab state, apart from oil revenues. Israel is the only country in the region with a real economy. Egypt doesn't "make" much of anything. Nor do Syria or Jordan. Work-ethics are basically unheard of. The non-oil states are propped up by the oil states, in an attempt to stave off “excessive” Islamic revolutionary furor that may ultimately target the sheikdoms. The oil states, in turn, are basically wealthy welfare states "worked" by slave-like importations of Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and other 3rd worlders. The only real meaningful work for Palestinians is in Israel -- despite huge infusions of oil (and western) money into the Palestinian Authority (ostensibly for purposes of nation building). That is why many ordinary Palestinians suffer so much when Israel is forced to close the crossings.

If the Palestinians are granted statehood, our beloved allies the Saudis (and the US, and the EU) would have to subsidize it. And the Saudis would have to continue surreptitiously funding insurgencies into Israel, lest the suicide bombers begin showing up at the palace gates.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

What do you want to do on Sunday?

The question of what are proper activities on the Sabbath continues to be contentious. And I really do mean contentious. My experience has been that this is viewed not as a question of Christian liberty—but one of absolute yeas and nays—we just can’t agree on what they are. Oh, people won’t get into outright brouhahas, but I occasionally sense true hostility in the person taking the more conservative position.

Of course that may well be because this is the rare issue where I tend to find myself in the more liberal camp (it hurts just to write those words).

Here are a list of things I’ve heard people debate about, and where I stand. I would be interested to hear what you think.

Work That’s the only no-brainer—no work (other than of necessity).

Yard Work I don’t do it. (I also don’t like it, so the oft-heard justification that “it’s not work , I enjoy it” is not a viable one in my case.)

Restaurants I will go to a restaurant. Once someone told me that they would never go to a restaurant because you might be contributing to other Christians (i.e., restaurant employees) having to work. He said that he went home after church and listened to Christian radio. I pointed out that it is possible that some people (announcers, technicians, etc.) have to work at those stations on Sunday.

Shopping Yes I will go shopping with the family. And in some sense it is work.

Non-Christian Movies, TV, Music To the limited extent that I do these on any day, I’ll do it on Sunday. (I spin-doctored that didn’t I?) Mostly this involves watching professional sports on TV.

Playing Sports, Exercise Inconsistency rules the day: no team practices but I would let my kids play in a scheduled game. I take bike rides with my kids. Shoot hoops and catch football in the yard. When I was still jogging, I would not jog on Sunday.

Musical Instrument Practice We don’t “ask” the boys to practice on Sunday. They appear, for once, to be in perfect harmony with a parental restriction.
Musical Recitals We will allow the boys to participate in recitals, the only limitation being we won’t skip church.

My guide in all this, to be honest, is the untrustworthy “gut feeling”.

The Verse That May Ultimately Cause Me to Reevaluate

And then there is this from the Holy Scriptures:

"If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot From doing your own pleasure on My holy day, And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the LORD honorable, And honor it, desisting from your own ways, From seeking your own pleasure And speaking your own word, Then you will take delight in the LORD, And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." (Isaiah 58 13:14, NASB)

I have been saying: no work, but play is Okay. This passage is evidence that such a position may not be defensible. I really have to study and pray about this.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

What can we do the Holy Spirit?

I was listening to the radio the other day (I think it was David Jeremiah—but my memory may be failing me). He was mentioning two things we could do to the Holy Spirit:

1. We can grieve the Holy Spirit. This is when we do what the Spirit does not want us to do.
   
2. We can quench the Holy Spirit. This is when we don’t do what the Spirit wants us to do.
   

Grieving the Spirit is your normal, everyday sins of commission, although it would seem especially sins of the tongue:

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Eph 4:29-31, NASB)

One discussion of quenching is in 1 Thessalonians:

in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. (1 Th 5:18-20, NASB)

This means different things to different people, but clearly quenching the spirit is in some manner resisting the good works we are called to (after our salvation, not for our salvation). Not praying, not giving thanks, not witnessing, not giving to those in need, etc. Quenching the Spirit involves of sins of omission.

The Dreaded Unforgivable Sin

There is another thing we can do to the Holy Spirit. We can blaspheme Him:

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. (Luke 12:10, NASB)

This is the “only unforgivable sin”. This causes more than a little concern and some weeping and gnashing of teeth the first time one learns about it. The good news is that we (believers) don’t have to worry about it at all. All the sins commited by believers are forgivable (or perhaps I should say forgiven):

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9).

So then, if blasphemy of the Spirit is unforgivable but God forgives us [believers] our sins then there is only one conclusion that does not give rise to a conflict: Blasphemy of the Spirit is the sin of unbelief. All unbelievers are guilty of the unforgivable sin (along with truckloads of your garden variety transgressions). Believers do not have to worry about the unforgivable sin.

---

Evangi-bloggers UNITE!

Provocative post on God Changing His Mind over at Thinking Out Loud.

Appreciate the response to my post on the Lord's Supper by the always joyful Joyful Christian.

---

Posts are in reverse chronological order.

The Lord’s Supper

Yesterday we celebrated the Lord’s Supper. I need some advice and prayer on how to have the proper attitude. Actually I think I know my problem: I don’t start preparing the week before—I just sort of show up for Sunday School, notice that the elements are being set out, and say to myself: “Oh, right, first Sunday of the month, Lord’s Supper.”

I try to focus, during order-of-service prayer times, on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and the unthinkable sacrifice that it represents. Often, however, I find myself worrying rather than worshiping. This is especially true now that my boys are participating. Are they really ready? Do they really understand the seriousness, and that they should pass if they are holding onto a sin? Will they spill their grape juice? Will one of us spill the entire tray of juice as we pass it along? This is not what I should be thinking about. (It could be worse I tell myself, if they do spill it-- it's no big deal. After all, it really is just grape juice.)

I know, intellectually, how important the Lord’s Supper is, but I struggle to get my emotions and thoughts to reflect the proper solemnity. We are told in the Bible to celebrate Christ’s death, but nowhere are we told to celebrate his birth. Yet I find it far easier to focus on Christmas than the Lord’s Supper. Yikes.

In our new church, as I suspect is almost the universal custom, the pastor requests that everyone hold the elements until everyone has been served. However, at a Presbyterian church we attended in Virginia, the pastor would sometimes ask us to wait, and sometimes ask us to partake as we received. Once I asked him what made him choose one way or another. He said that he just wanted to make a point that neither method was prescribed in the bible. He rightly pointed out that, as far as drinking the wine, the apostles drank as served—since they shared one cup that they passed around. So his practice, of using both methods, makes sense to me. I actually prefer to partake as served, and then concentrate on prayer without the distraction of holding the element.

The bible does not specify how often we should celebrate the Lord’s Supper. I find it interesting that some people think it is so important we should do it every week, and others think that it is so important we should do it infrequently, lest it become too routine-- different conclusions from the same premise.

Declaration of War

More dangerous inanity from the Religion of Peace.

---