Paul at Lystra, where there's a first time for everything

Paul’s (and Barnabas’) first missionary journey is one eventful stop after another. But the most interesting (or at least the most unique) stop may have been in Lystra in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). Lystra is also (many speculate) the hometown of Timothy. There, in Lystra, Paul (well not really Paul, but you know what I mean) heals a lame man. This was a seriously lame man, as we see from the somewhat redundant description of his condition:

And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. (Acts 14:8, NKJV)

So far, so good. But things are about to go squirrely. After the miracle is observed by the natives, they expressed their marvel in their native language, which neither Paul nor Barnabas understood:

¹¹ Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” ¹² And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. (Acts 14:11-12, NKJV)

We surmise the missionaries lack of understanding of the Lycaonian dialect by the fact that they did not object to being identified as Greek gods. 

So we have good news and we have bad news. The good news is that Paul and Barnabas started a revival! The bad news is that it was in the wrong religion. 

 Only later, when they surmised that plans were being made for an unholy and idolatrous sacrifice (to them!) did Paul and Barnabas realize what was happening, and of course they then objected strenuously:

¹⁴ But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out ¹⁵ and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, ¹⁶ who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. ¹⁷ Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” ¹⁸ And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. (Acts 14:14-18, NKJV)

Luke refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles in v14. A factoid: this is the only place in Acts where Luke uses that title for either of the men. 

Apart from being mistaken for human manifestations of Greek gods, what is interesting is the “sermon” Paul preaches in verses 15-17. This is Paul, the master of being all things to all people, morphing to fit his audience. On previous stops in their trek, the audience (found at synagogues) was knowledgeable about the God of Israel and Old Testament prophecy. (Even the Gentile listeners, who were typically “God Fearers”.) Not so here; this rambunctious crowd was purely pagan. In fact, this is the first time Paul preaches to a purely pagan gathering, with the only other recorded occurrence being his preaching at the Areopagus (Acts 17). 

Paul has a simple message, appropriate for a crowd of pagans, namely that they should turn from useless and dead idols to the living God, who cared for them even when they knew him not. 

And if Paul then launched into a deep academic discussion of metaphysics and epistemology, and using such philosophical tools went on to derive (through infallibe extrapolation) strict divine aseity, immutability, impeccability, and impassibility, well for some reason it was not recorded by Luke.

Hey Paul, while you're here, can you do us a favor?

There are some passages of scripture that for many of us are indirect testimonies to its trustworthiness simply by their presence. While not an actual proof of anything, we read something and (properly) comfort ourselves that if this were all fiction, who would have thought to include this particular account? For me there are many examples of this, and the one I’ll discuss today is the arrival of Paul in Jerusalem with a gift from the Gentile churches, as described by Luke in Acts 21:

¹⁷ And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. ¹⁸ On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ¹⁹ When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. ²⁰ And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; ²¹ but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ²² What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. ²³ Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. ²⁴ Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (Acts 21:17-24, NKJV)

First, allow me to point out something that I overlooked the first N times I read this. The brethren received Paul and his entourage gladly (v17), and the next day (v18) James (the brother of Jesus) and the elders (whoever they were) were called upon. They are (what I always missed) two distinct groups. Of course James and the elders also received Paul warmly, although they are unwittingly about to give him some nearly fatal advice.

There were scurrilous rumors circulating that Paul was teaching the Jewish converts to turn away from Moses and the national customs. At some level this was true, and at some level it wasn’t. Paul never forbid the practice of circumcision or Jewish customs, he denied the necessity thereof. He was quite happy to leave their practice to one’s conscience. And he in fact was quite willing, as we see here, to follow Jewish customs when among Jews (and Gentile customs when among Gentiles.) For the sake of the gospel, he was all things to all people, a lesson today’s legalists, including those found among the uber-reformed, have largely forgotten or willfully ignore.

So that James and the elders could avoid the embarrassment of having to defend him to the outraged Jews, and to demonstrate that he was not forbidding circumcision or the practice of customs, Paul readily agreed to their dog and pony show. He would partake in a very public and very Jewish custom of ritual purification, and even to pay the fees for four other men requiring purification, an act of charity that was considered especially pious and praiseworthy.

It all backfired, of course, when a riot broke out because certain Asian (as in from Ephesus, not Viet Nam) Jews, likely there for the feast of Pentecost, and possibly harboring resentment for Paul’s successful evangelistic activities in their homeland, created a fake-news bulletin that Paul had committed an act that was unspeakable (for the Jews it was a capital offense, to me it wouldn’t seem so bad), namely that he had escorted a Gentile member of his entourage into the inner courts of the temple. Luke tells us:

the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, ²⁸ crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” ²⁹ (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) ³⁰ And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. (Acts 21:27b-30, NKJV)

Paul is rescued from injury (or death) by the Romans, all of which will lead to a fascinating set of legal battles for Paul. But if you are left wondering why this happened, some (I buy this, I think) have pointed to the end of v30:

immediately the [temple] doors were shut.

Paul had done nothing wrong, and yet the temple was now closed to him, and by (symbolic) extension closed to all Jewish Christians. A further indication that the providential grace period wherein Christianity hid in safety behind a thin veneer of being mislabelled as a “misguided Jewish sect” was coming to an end. Christianity would soon have to stand on its own.

Scripture and Josephus agree on Agrippa's fatal intestinal problem

The first wave of persecution ^[1] against the early Christians ended when its chief prosecutor was converted on the road to Damascus. After that there was a period of relative peace and calm towards the Christians that, I believe, was due in large part to their being viewed as an oddball sect of Judaism. They may be crazies, but they’re our crazies, so they were tolerated. Now Stephen had recognized that Christianity was not merely a misguided sect of Judaism, as did Saul, but in large part this does not appear to have been the case.

Providentially speaking, this inability to see Christianity as wholly different from Judaism provided protection for the early Jewish Christians, giving them a chance to reach a critical mass. But that could not continue indefinitely, and the façade began to crumble when the church began welcoming uncircumcised Gentiles, not as second class “God fearers”, but as equals, a movement begun by Peter who under divine command baptized the Gentile household of Cornelius. This acceptance of the Gentiles cost the church much favor among the Jews, and this shifting of sentiments made it politically possible for the right ruler to launch a new wave of persecution.

The man for the job was Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great.

First, he beheaded James, son of Zebedee. Seeing that the Jews found this acceptable (Acts 12:3) Agrippa then cast his eyes upon Peter and had him arrested, most likely with the intent of putting him to the sword as well. But as we know, Peter’s work was not yet done, and God engineered a miraculous liberation of his incarceration.

Agrippa was not pleased. But Peter’s escape was actually the least of his problems. Not long afterwards we read of his fate:

²⁰ Now [Agrippa] was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and with one mind they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they were asking for peace, because their country was supported with grain from the king’s country. ²¹ On an appointed day, after putting on his royal apparel, Herod took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. ²² The people repeatedly cried out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” ²³ And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died. (Acts 12:20-23)

Becqause of ill-advised actions unknown to us, the people of Tyre and Sidon had bitten the hand that fed them. Realizing their mistake, they attempted to ingratiate themselves to their meal ticket by proclaiming him a deity. It would seem that Agrippa’s fatal error was that he accepted their worship.

What is interesting here is the independent corroboration of this story by the great contemporary historian Josephus, who wrote of a visit to Caesarea by Agrippa:

[Agrippa came to the Cæsarea] and there he exhibited shows in honor of Cæsar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, [though not for his good,] that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age (Joseohus, Antiquities, 19.8)

The two accounts are quite similar with no real conflict. Perhaps the intestinal pain was due to a parasite (worms). Who knows?

---

^[1] It was relatively mild stuff like death by stoning. Nothing like the Great Persecution of 2020-2021, where Christians had to obey public health regulations that applied equally to other assemblies.

Saul's Conversion (with conflicts!)

 ³ Now as he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; ⁴ and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” ⁵ And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, ⁶ but get up and enter the city, and it will be told to you what you must do.” ⁷ The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:3-7, NASB) 

If I never knew what Calvinism was, then reading the account of Paul’s conversion would have led me inexorably to some primordial form.

 

Paul was not seeking the Lord.

Paul was not being divinely wooed to come to Christ.

Paul was not being proselytized.

 

No, Paul experienced literally what most of us experience metaphorically: We are knocked to the ground; we are dragged and compelled. Any feeling that we had something to do with our conversion is simply an attempt at after-the-fact rationalization. It's illusory. It's our effort to drape a worldly context on what amounts to a supernatural intervention, a miracle if you will. We contribute naught but our sin.

 

In the case at hand, the utterance of the Lord begins with the object's name repeated: Saul, Saul. This is a common feature when God deigns to speak audibly to a creature. Saul recognizes the divine authority of the voice but not the specifics, as he asks: “Who are you, Lord?” He received an answer that he could not have possibly expected (or wanted). We would all love to hear the first part: “I am Jesus.” We would rather not have to hear the rest: “whom you are persecuting.” Yikes. I'd be expecting something unpleasant at that point. But then again, this is Jesus we are talking about.

 

The account does not tell us that Saul saw Jesus. That's not a conflict, just a factoid. That particular detail is added later, first by Ananias in 9:17, and then by Barnabas in 9:17, and again later by Paul’s retelling (e.g., 1 Cor 9:1). 

 

There are some conflicts perhaps worth mentioning. In 9:7 we are told a) Saul’s companions stood speechless and b) they heard the voice.  The first is superficially in conflict with Paul’s retelling in Acts 26:14

And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me 

The second is in apparent conflict with, again, Paul’s own words, this time from Acts 22:9

And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.

The first conflict is usually explained by the possibility that while Saul remained on the ground his companions, somewhat stunned by the light, went to the ground, but not being the target of the act of divine sovereignty were less affected, and so they quickly recovered and got up. So they were sort of down and not down (Schrödinger companions.) That is, by the time we get to v7 of the primary account, the companions have already stood up.

The second conflict is often explained away with the argument that the companions heard something but unlike Saul what reached their ears was not discernable, it was just thunderous noise.

 

That works for me. These are not important (apparent) discrepancies.

How could they see and not believe?

We often ask the question: how could those ancient people witness the miracles of Jesus and not believe? It seems incomprehensible. 

It is incomprehensible for good reason. Because they did believe. But their belief was not a faith reckoned to them as righteousness. We see this in several passages. Most clearly, I would say, at the end of John 2:

²³ Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. ²⁴ But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, ²⁵ and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man. (John 2:23-25, NKJV)

Here we have a group who are observing Jesus’ wonderous signs, and scripture does not tell us “and amazingly they did not believe! Nope, they believed, but it was not the right kind of belief. 

The text doesn’t say how they were deficient, but I’m willing to speculate they merely had an intellectual assent that Jesus was a sort of holy man  or prophet capable of miracles. Maybe at the level of Moses or Elijah. But not the Son of God who came to die and take away the sins of the world. Like Nicodemus, they knew something, but they were not (at least yet) born again. Jesus did not commit himself to them. At least at that time. 

We also see this in Simon the Magician of Acts 8, who (seeing wonderous deeds done in Samaria in the name of Jesus) believed and was even baptized, only later to be excommunicated. He believed, but he didn’t understand. 

We even see the same pattern with his close disciples. In Mark 8, Jesus reminds them that they had witnessed the miraculous feeding of thousands, but yet he felt compelled to ask: “How is it that you do not understand?” They had seen. They believed. But they did not understand. And Jesus did not commit himself to them. That is, until they did (imperfectly) understood, when Peter, speaking for the group, answers the direct question with “you are the Christ.” Then they believed and (somewhat) understood, and only then did Jesus commit himself and reveal the greatest mystery, that he must suffer and die. 

So when a skeptic says that he would believe if God rearranged the stars to spell out “Hello World!” in ten languages, he is telling the truth. He would believe, but it wouldn’t be enough.

Peter before Paul: the small p pentecost of the Gentiles

Paul is the "apostle to the Gentiles" but it was Peter who blazed the trail. While Paul was, as far as we know, languishing in obscurity back in Tarsus, Peter had the privilege of leading a second Pentecost of sorts, this time to the Gentiles. Let's call it the small-p pentecost: 

⁴⁴ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. ⁴⁵ And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, ⁴⁷ “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” ⁴⁸ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:44-48, NKJV) 

If we compare this to the Pentecost, we find something interesting: a different ordering of events. Of the Pentecost of Jews in Jerusalem we read: 

³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39, NKJV) 

So the ordering for those in attendance in Jerusalem at the official launch of the New Testament church was: 1) repent 2) receive water baptism, and only then 3) receive the Holy Spirit. The pentecost of the Gentiles was much more like the pregame-pentecost of the apostles themselves, with the Holy Spirit leading the show, complete with visible supernatural manifestations: 

¹When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. ² And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³ Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. ⁴ And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4, NKJV) 

In both cases, visible manifestations of the Spirit play an important role. In the Pentecost it certainly made Peter’s sermon more effective and the listeners more attentive. ^[1] And in the pentecost for the Gentiles it made it quite clear to the Jewish witnesses that the unthinkable had happened, the Spirit of God had indeed descended upon the race about whom association was more or less forbidden, just as it had on the chosen race. ^[2] Their world changed in an instant, and without the supernatural expressions they quite possibly would not have taken Peter at his word that the conversion of the Gentiles was real, and Peter’s later defense in Jerusalem would have been much more likely to fail. 

Instead, Peter asks if anyone can find a reason why baptism should not be permitted, and nothing but crickets could offer an answer. 

Of course, in many modern evangelical churches none these baptisms, either at Pentecost or the Gentile pentecost would be accepted as valid. The apostles (bad Peter, bad Paul! ) had a terrible habit of baptizing in the name of Jesus, rather than in the name of the triune God. And many modern evangelical churches understand that unless you say it in a prescribed manner, like a chant or incantation, God has to sit on his hands. He cannot dispense sacramental grace unless we humans say the right words to free his hands. We are so important!

 

---

^[1] Read Peter's sermon, arguably the most inportant sermon offered by a human in history. It doesn't take 45 minutes. Modern sermons are too long. Pastors: we love you but there is much zoning out in the pews. Less is more. Redirect some of that sermon time to what is often missing: fellowship. 

^[2] We understandably tend to dwell on the effect of this event on the Gentiles, but really just as important was the effect on the Jews.

There is no call to Christian Jihad

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. (Luke 22:36, NKJV) 

In my opinion ^† it is easier to understand what this passage isn’t whether than what it is. What it is not is a call to violence or a call to armed rebellion. 

Look at the response of the disciples and Jesus’ telling retort: 

So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords. And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:38, NKJV) 

Jesus’ response “It is enough” has been taken two ways. The first that two swords will suffice, the second (more probable I would say ^†) is that the disciples' unthinking banter is enough, because they had missed the boat on what he was saying, which was not meant to be taken literally. 

In either case, the interpretation that this is a divine call to violence or arms is on shaky ground. The disciples have, in their armory, two swords. Two! That is nowhere near enough to stand against any force that could be and would be arrayed against them. If Jesus’ “It is enough” means that two swords would suffice militarily against their future foes, he must have envisioned a war against a small, pacifist cub-scout troop. The disciples, a ragtag group of militarily untrained laborers, with a total of two swords, would not scare or resist anyone. (At least not with their literal metal swords. Their non-literal two-edged swords would turn out to be very effective.)

The nail in the coffin of the view that Jesus authorizes some sort of Christian jihad comes just hours later at the time of His arrest, when a sword (very likely one of these two swords) was put into action. Jesus instructs the sword to be put away and heals the injury it caused. 

Jesus’ “It is enough” response is better understood as a somewhat reluctant acknowledgment that they had altogether missed the meaning of his word picture. 

Perhaps Jesus was telling his disciples something like this: ^† 

Remember earlier in my ministry when I sent you out to the towns, and told you to take no food, no money, no anything? That was in recognition of the fact that while you would not be universally welcomed, you be welcomed by more than enough who would be happy to meet your needs. But those days are about to end. Now you will be unwelcome everywhere, and you need to be prepared to meet your own needs. 

We see this, I believe, in the verse in between the two I already quoted: 

For I say to you that this which is written must still be [accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” (Luke 22:37, NKJV) 

He will be numbered with the transgressors. Those who share a cross with him at Calvary, and those who carry on his ministry.

---

^† Everything in this blog related to theology is "in my opinion" only. Don’t trust anything I write.

Let the dead bury the dead?

Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:70, NKJV) 

At first blush, this is not a particularly easy saying. 

Jesus had just spoken to the man, telling him to “follow me.” The man is agreeable to the proposition, with every indication sincerely so. However, he makes what appears to be a reasonable request, which both honors his parents as the commandment requires and is consistent with Jewish cultural practices: first he would bury his recently dead father and then he would gladly join Jesus as a disciple. 

Jesus rejects this request. Why? 

There have been many explanations designed to soften Jesus’ meaning, most along the lines that Jesus actually meant something like “there are professional undertakers—let them handle that dirty job” 

I don’t think so. 

I think it has exactly its seemingly hard meaning: Let those who are (spiritually) dead bury those who are truly dead. 

Note it is no reflection on the man’s father, who may have been saved. We don’t know. But it is a reflection on who should handle this particular burial. Those who have no business in a matter at hand, a matter of extreme urgency. The kingdom is at hand. 

Jesus is not giving us a prescription for all time, that from this point forward the burial of dead parents is to be considered a trivial matter, best left to infidels. No, Jesus is saying this: my ministry is entering a phase of cosmic importance and under these unique circumstances it is best to delegate that task and follow me. 

We can see this in the context of this statement. Earlier in the same chapter Jesus elicits from Peter the great confession whereby Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ. And then he “springs” on His followers the great surprise and shocker that though he is the Messiah he is not the one they are expecting—He is going to die, and die soon, without achieving any political victory. In the parallel passage in Mark, Peter is severely rebuked for boldly telling Jesus that such a tragedy will not occur on his watch. To top it off, Jesus tells them that they likely face a similar fate, and they will have to pick up their cross and walk their own death-walk to complete their role in inaugurating the kingdom. 

The kids' stuff is over; it is time for the big boys to come out and play.

This is the context in which Jesus tells the man to allow the dead to bury his father. All of redemptive history is about to reach its apex. There are more important tasks at hand than to bury this father—in fact the man is given a chance to participate in something that, if successful, is the only way for the man to have any hope that someday his dead father would not remain dead, he would be raised.

Pastors: training people for baptism is not in your job jar

Pastors worry about whether or not a person requesting baptism is ready. They shouldn’t. 

Scripture does not tell you to train extensively those seeking baptism. 

 

Scripture does not hold you responsible for “mistakenly” baptizing unbelievers. 

 

If you want to worry about something, you should worry about declining to baptize a believer who doesn’t measure up to your standards! I’d seriously worry about answering to that mistake before God.

 

Despite it being assumed without question (as “common sense”), there are no data indicating that your accuracy rate (which is unknowable anyway) is improved by requiring extensive training prior to baptism. You actually have no way of discerning whether someone is a believer or an imposter, at least not with any certainty.

 

There are no data that indicate the dreaded “false assurance rate” is better (i.e. reduced) if you train longer. 

 

“Bad” baptisms, such as we find in scripture (Simon the Magician, presumably the adulterer in Corinth, etc.) are not held up as examples as to how we must be more discerning in whom we baptize. The message is much more along the lines of: “Okay, time to move on.”

 

Think about this sobering truth: Most modern evangelical churches would not perform any of the baptisms in the New Testament. In all the scriptural examples we have, all that was required was a simple statement of belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is the source of salvation. Churches I have been a member of would not have (in the same timely manner) baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, Lydia and her family, the Philippian jailer and his family, the multitudes at Pentecost or any of the other baptisms described in Acts, because those receiving baptism had not been thoroughly trained and tested. 

 

On this matter, pastors and elders need to get over themselves. You job is to teach and shepherd (don’t forget to shepherd-- you guys often neglect the shepherding) and to baptize those professing simple belief who seek baptism. Your job is not and never has been (as far as scripture is concerned) to do the impossible, i.e., determine the sincerity of their profession. Your job is not and never has been (as far as scripture is concerned) to impose a standard on the level of theological knowledge possessed prior to being baptized. Are you so self-centered that you imagine that the weight is on your shoulders? It’s not. Thankfully God did not deem to give you that responsibility, and yet you act as if he did. The weight of a bad baptism is squarely on those seeking baptism, not on those administering it.

The Fall was a Good Thing

The Fall was a good thing. Such is the demonstrable conclusion based on two facts that any Christian should accept, viz., 

1. God is sovereign. 

2. It's that wonderful (yet most insensitively quoted) verse in all of scripture, Romans 8:28.

Congregant: The tornado destroyed my home, my car, my begonias, and Aunt Ethyl appears not to be in Kansas anymore.

 

Pastor: Very sorry that happened, but don’t forget: All things work together for good to those who love God…

The Sovereignty of God finds a good expression in the great Protestant confessions, e.g.  

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3.1)

Some (like one out of the five who read this blog) may be surprised to see me quote a capital C Confession, but in truth I love them. I am just appaled when people forget they are fallible. Or when they outrageously extrapolate from them, as in claiming that the confession’s statement that God is without “passions” (which nobody would dispute) implies anything remotely like the modern monstrosity that is taught involving extreme views on Impassibility, Immutability, Impeccability, and Simplicity. Views that render God as a Star-Trek-like impersonal and stoic universal life force, and bestows upon the Holy Spirit, for the gazillion times he inspired writings attributing emotions to God, the title of  “incompetent inspirer of the Word.”

 

But I digress.

 

WCF 3.1 is one of the (in my opinion) minority paragraphs in the confession where the proof texts are actually satisfying. But you can judge for yourself. It tells us of course that nothing happens outside of God’s purview; at a bare minimum he at least permits everything that happens to happen, even if (as is often the case) he doesn’t condone or endorse it. He certainly allows us to sin, but the sin is on us. There is a tension here, a tension not free of mystery. If you take ordain to be a precise synonym of decree, then it becomes difficult to attribute moral culpability. “Ordain” is something slightly weaker and more nuanced than “And God Said…” decrees, something allowing for moral free agency and yet not so weak that there is a possibility that any of God’s plans or promises could be thwarted.

God is not a puppet master, and yet what he ordains happens. It is actually quite awesome.

 

I once heard RC Sproul talk about the four permutations (with repeats) of Good and Bad as it relates to evil. From highly fallible memory:

1. Good-Good
2. Bad-Good
3. Bad-Bad
4. Good-Bad

Good-Good is unavailable to fallen humans. It is untainted good done for a good purpose. It is the domain of God.

 

Bad Good is possible for humans. Humans can do good, but the motives are always tainted by our selfishness and self-aggrandizement.

 

Bad-Bad is what it sounds like. Evil stuff done for evil purposes. This is something that we can do but God can’t, but of course nobody should take any comfort in that.

 

Good-Bad is, somewhat surprising, also in God’s hands. The classic example is that of Joseph and his brothers. But the Fall is also an example. The sin precipitating the Fall was bad, but God used it for good. How else could God use it?

The Fall was good. QED.

 

If the Fall was good, can we conclude it was necessary? Probably. 

 

And if it was necessary, why was it necessary?

 

Nobody can answer that, at least on this side of glory. And if they do, make sure you get them to admit that are engaging in speculation—which is fine as long as it is acknowledged as such.