(Matthew 22:37) "And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (ESV)
We are to love God with all of our being including our mind. Unfortunately modern evangelicals have downplayed the role of the mind in loving God. Modern evangelicalism has an anti-intellectual streak preferring to focus more on feelings and experience. Loving God with our minds involves having a great concern for doctrine and theology. Unbelievably many evangelicals have a negative view of doctrine and theology.
The liberals of old said that Christianity was life and not doctrine. Unfortunately this seems to be the motto of many modern day evangelicals. Christianity is life based on doctrine. Liberalism denied the authority of Scripture, hopefully evangelicalism will not go down the same path.
If we truly love God we will desire to know more about him. You have heard it said that I don't need theology to know God loves me. Well I hate to break this to you but saying God loves me is theology. Theology is basically the study of God and every Christian should be interested in him. Of course thinking about God and the things of God requires some effort. This may be part of the reason why evangelicals are weak in their thought life.
God has revealed himself to us in the Bible. To be a thinking Christian one must read and study the Bible. It needs to be read as a whole and not just in bits and pieces. We have to learn to see the big picture and develop a Christian worldview. We will then have sound doctrine upon which to base our lives.
We must learn to love God with our minds. Being anti-intellectual is simply disobeying God. The church will not be strong until we recover our minds. We must have good theology and sound doctrine in order to honor and love God.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Monday, July 10, 2017
Which Bible Translation Should I Use?
Since the Bible is the Word of God, his revelation to us it is important to use a good translation. There are three basic types of translations. They are literal, dynamic, and paraphrase. A good Bible translation needs to be readable and most importantly accurate.
The first translation category is literal. It seeks to translate word for word as much as possible from the Hebrew and Greek. Literal translation also tries to maintain the original sentence structure. The idea is to be transparent to the original text. Examples of literal translation are: ESV, NASB, CSB, and NKJV.
The next translation category is dynamic equivalence. It is more of a thought for thought translation not necessarily trying to maintain word for word translation. Dynamic translation tries to steer a middle ground between literal and paraphrase. The original sentence structure is often changed for greater readability. Examples of dynamic translation are: NIV, NLT, and NRSV.
The other translation category is paraphrase. This type focuses on readability mainly. Paraphrases deviate greatly from the original Hebrew and Greek, basically just giving you the gist of what the original text said. Examples of paraphrase include: The Message and The Living Bible.
I do not really recommend dynamic translations or paraphrases. Dynamic translations are just thought for thought and not word for word. They deviate somewhat from the original text giving you the translators interpretation instead of what it actually says. Also dynamic translations often tend to be politically correct. Paraphrases are probably best avoided all together. They stray too much from the original text and are not very accurate or precise.
I strongly recommend literal translations. They try to translate from the Greek and Hebrew as closely as possible. There goal is to be transparent to the original text, giving you what it actually says. A literal translation is much more accurate and reliable than a dynamic translation or paraphrase.
Here are what I consider to be the best translations.
1) (ESV) English Standard Version
2) (NASB) New American Standard Bible
3) (CSB) Christian Standard Bible
4) (NKJV) New King James Version
The first translation category is literal. It seeks to translate word for word as much as possible from the Hebrew and Greek. Literal translation also tries to maintain the original sentence structure. The idea is to be transparent to the original text. Examples of literal translation are: ESV, NASB, CSB, and NKJV.
The next translation category is dynamic equivalence. It is more of a thought for thought translation not necessarily trying to maintain word for word translation. Dynamic translation tries to steer a middle ground between literal and paraphrase. The original sentence structure is often changed for greater readability. Examples of dynamic translation are: NIV, NLT, and NRSV.
The other translation category is paraphrase. This type focuses on readability mainly. Paraphrases deviate greatly from the original Hebrew and Greek, basically just giving you the gist of what the original text said. Examples of paraphrase include: The Message and The Living Bible.
I do not really recommend dynamic translations or paraphrases. Dynamic translations are just thought for thought and not word for word. They deviate somewhat from the original text giving you the translators interpretation instead of what it actually says. Also dynamic translations often tend to be politically correct. Paraphrases are probably best avoided all together. They stray too much from the original text and are not very accurate or precise.
I strongly recommend literal translations. They try to translate from the Greek and Hebrew as closely as possible. There goal is to be transparent to the original text, giving you what it actually says. A literal translation is much more accurate and reliable than a dynamic translation or paraphrase.
Here are what I consider to be the best translations.
1) (ESV) English Standard Version
2) (NASB) New American Standard Bible
3) (CSB) Christian Standard Bible
4) (NKJV) New King James Version
Monday, June 26, 2017
Think Better, Live Better
Think Better, Live Better is the title of a recent book by Joel Osteen. It is not a bad title because it does contain some truth in it. Of course Osteen encourages us to think positive and rid ourselves of all negativity. We might call this teaching Osteenism. But is the teaching of Osteen in line with the teaching of the Bible. We will compare Osteenism with the Biblical worldview.
First we will look at the view of God. If you do not have an accurate view of God you will not have an accurate view of yourself. The God of Osteenism basically exists for you. He is there to make you happy and help you achieve health, victory, and success. This God is kind of a life coach who makes no demands on you. He is not a judge and you do not need to worry about his wrath.
In contrast the Biblical view of God is very different. God is Trinity (3 persons of 1 essence), he is the infinite, personal Creator. He is sovereign, holy, and the ultimate authority. He is loving and merciful but also displays his wrath against sin and judges you. God is more concerned about your holiness than your happiness. In the Biblical view we exist for God and our ultimate purpose is to glorify him.
Next we will look at the view of man and his problem. In Osteenism the big problem is that we have to much negativity and are just not thinking positive. If you start thinking good, positive thoughts about yourself it will become reality (kind of like name it claim it). Joel Osteen actually says there is nothing wrong with you.
In sharp contrast the Biblical view says there most definitely is something wrong with you, it is called sin. We were born sinful (Psalm 51:5), we are not righteous (Romans 3:10), and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God is holy and therefore hates sin. Our sin makes us objects of his wrath (Ephesians 2:3). In contrast to Joel Osteen's view of man as basically good the Apostle Paul described himself as "wretched man that I am" (Romans 7:24) and "the chief of sinners" (1 Timothy 1:10).
Finally we look at the solution to man's problem. In Osteenism the solution comes from within yourself. You must stop all the negativity and just think those positive thoughts. Then you will achieve that happy, victorious life. You will have your best life now.
On the other hand the Biblical view presents a much different solution because the problem is entirely different. The solution is not found within ourselves but from outside of ourselves. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. God sent his Son, Jesus to save his people from their sins. Jesus lived a perfect life to provide righteousness for us and he died on the cross to pay for our sins. He was raised from the dead victorious over sin, death, and the devil. Those who repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation will be saved and go to heaven.
It should be quite obvious that Osteenism and the Biblical view are totally different. Those strictly adhering to Osteenism will be led astray and on the road to hell. Joel Osteen is preaching a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). He simply tells people what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4). The true church must call out Joel Osteen for what he really is, a false teacher peddling a false gospel.
First we will look at the view of God. If you do not have an accurate view of God you will not have an accurate view of yourself. The God of Osteenism basically exists for you. He is there to make you happy and help you achieve health, victory, and success. This God is kind of a life coach who makes no demands on you. He is not a judge and you do not need to worry about his wrath.
In contrast the Biblical view of God is very different. God is Trinity (3 persons of 1 essence), he is the infinite, personal Creator. He is sovereign, holy, and the ultimate authority. He is loving and merciful but also displays his wrath against sin and judges you. God is more concerned about your holiness than your happiness. In the Biblical view we exist for God and our ultimate purpose is to glorify him.
Next we will look at the view of man and his problem. In Osteenism the big problem is that we have to much negativity and are just not thinking positive. If you start thinking good, positive thoughts about yourself it will become reality (kind of like name it claim it). Joel Osteen actually says there is nothing wrong with you.
In sharp contrast the Biblical view says there most definitely is something wrong with you, it is called sin. We were born sinful (Psalm 51:5), we are not righteous (Romans 3:10), and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God is holy and therefore hates sin. Our sin makes us objects of his wrath (Ephesians 2:3). In contrast to Joel Osteen's view of man as basically good the Apostle Paul described himself as "wretched man that I am" (Romans 7:24) and "the chief of sinners" (1 Timothy 1:10).
Finally we look at the solution to man's problem. In Osteenism the solution comes from within yourself. You must stop all the negativity and just think those positive thoughts. Then you will achieve that happy, victorious life. You will have your best life now.
On the other hand the Biblical view presents a much different solution because the problem is entirely different. The solution is not found within ourselves but from outside of ourselves. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. God sent his Son, Jesus to save his people from their sins. Jesus lived a perfect life to provide righteousness for us and he died on the cross to pay for our sins. He was raised from the dead victorious over sin, death, and the devil. Those who repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation will be saved and go to heaven.
It should be quite obvious that Osteenism and the Biblical view are totally different. Those strictly adhering to Osteenism will be led astray and on the road to hell. Joel Osteen is preaching a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). He simply tells people what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4). The true church must call out Joel Osteen for what he really is, a false teacher peddling a false gospel.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Bernie Sanders Attacks Christians
Bernie Sanders is a U.S. Senator from Vermont and of course was a Democrat presidential candidate. The intolerance of this tolerant man was astounding.
The incident occurred recently in a hearing for Russell Vought, who was nominated for Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Bernie Sanders called Vought Islamophobic and hateful for comments he had previously made. Vought had pointed out that Muslims do not know the true God and stand condemned because they reject Jesus who is the Son of God. Sanders then asked Vought if he thought his statement was Islamophobic and if he believed Muslims would be condemned. Sanders also asked him if he thought Jews would be condemned. Russell Vought tried to explain to Sanders that these were simply Christian beliefs, the teaching of the Bible. But Bernie Sanders would never allow him to finish his explanation, continually cutting him off.
Sanders concluded that Vought was unfit for public office and that there was no place for these beliefs in the public square. Bernie Sanders apparently believes that no Bible believing Christian should be allowed in the public arena.
Sanders is of course a socialist and a secularist. If you do not tow the secular line you will be silenced. All religions are not the same and they do not worship the same God. Jesus is either God or he is not God. It has to be one or the other. Of course Sanders does not care about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution for that matter, he rejects both of them. He imposes a religious test for government officials and is more than willing to stifle religious liberty. Bernie Sanders is actually practicing Christophobia.
Sanders colleague Senator Christoper Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland also chimed in on the matter. Van Hollen said he was a Christian and that he thought part of being a Christian was recognizing that there were many paths to God. Van Hollen also concluded that Vought was unfit for public office. Of course Van Hollen holds to theological liberalism.
Theological liberals embrace secularism while trying to retain the Christian label. As J. Gresham Machen said, liberalism is not Christianity at all. If there were many paths to God, Christianity would make no sense. If there are many ways to heaven then Christ died on the cross for no purpose.
This is the view of two prominent Democrat leaders. Technically Sanders is an Independent but for all practical purposes he is a Democrat. The Left is only tolerant of those with whom it agrees. Sanders actually had significant support during his presidential campaign especially among millennials. This is very frightening. Why would any Christian support the Democrat Party?
(John 14:6) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (ESV)
(Acts 4:12) "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (ESV)
The incident occurred recently in a hearing for Russell Vought, who was nominated for Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Bernie Sanders called Vought Islamophobic and hateful for comments he had previously made. Vought had pointed out that Muslims do not know the true God and stand condemned because they reject Jesus who is the Son of God. Sanders then asked Vought if he thought his statement was Islamophobic and if he believed Muslims would be condemned. Sanders also asked him if he thought Jews would be condemned. Russell Vought tried to explain to Sanders that these were simply Christian beliefs, the teaching of the Bible. But Bernie Sanders would never allow him to finish his explanation, continually cutting him off.
Sanders concluded that Vought was unfit for public office and that there was no place for these beliefs in the public square. Bernie Sanders apparently believes that no Bible believing Christian should be allowed in the public arena.
Sanders is of course a socialist and a secularist. If you do not tow the secular line you will be silenced. All religions are not the same and they do not worship the same God. Jesus is either God or he is not God. It has to be one or the other. Of course Sanders does not care about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution for that matter, he rejects both of them. He imposes a religious test for government officials and is more than willing to stifle religious liberty. Bernie Sanders is actually practicing Christophobia.
Sanders colleague Senator Christoper Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland also chimed in on the matter. Van Hollen said he was a Christian and that he thought part of being a Christian was recognizing that there were many paths to God. Van Hollen also concluded that Vought was unfit for public office. Of course Van Hollen holds to theological liberalism.
Theological liberals embrace secularism while trying to retain the Christian label. As J. Gresham Machen said, liberalism is not Christianity at all. If there were many paths to God, Christianity would make no sense. If there are many ways to heaven then Christ died on the cross for no purpose.
This is the view of two prominent Democrat leaders. Technically Sanders is an Independent but for all practical purposes he is a Democrat. The Left is only tolerant of those with whom it agrees. Sanders actually had significant support during his presidential campaign especially among millennials. This is very frightening. Why would any Christian support the Democrat Party?
(John 14:6) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (ESV)
(Acts 4:12) "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (ESV)
Monday, June 5, 2017
Jesus Is God (The Gospel Of John)
The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus is God. Throughout it is very strong on the deity of Christ. We will look at a few verses from John's Gospel.
(John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (ESV)
"The Word" relates to the Old Testament in the sense that God spoke, he spoke things into existence. He is a personal God. "The Word" is also superior to the Greek concept of an impersonal force that orders the universe.
The Word is Jesus. He has existed eternally, has a personal relationship with God the Father, and Jesus is God. We see that two different persons are referred to as God. We begin to see the teaching of the Trinity. There is one God in three persons. That is three persons of one essence (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Jehovah's Witnesses translate the phrase as "was a god" instead of "was God". But the context clearly shows that the correct translation is "was God".
(John 1:3) "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (ESV)
Jesus was not created, all things were made through him. All that exists besides God was created. Jesus is the Creator, therefore he is God.
(John 1:18) "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." (ESV)
In this verse God is spoken of as two persons just as he was in John 1:1. We see both the Father and the Son. Some translations have "only Son" instead of "only God" but "only God" is found in the earliest manuscripts. Jesus became man (see John 1:14), he has most fully revealed God to us. Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
(John 20:28) "Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (ESV)
Thomas had doubted the resurrection of Christ but when Jesus appeared to him and showed him the marks in his hands and side he proclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus accepts being called Lord and God because that is who he is. This verse is one of the strongest affirmations of the deity of Christ in the New Testament. Some cults who deny the deity of Christ have tried to say it was just a statement of astonishment by Thomas. Basically saying that Thomas was taking the name of the Lord in vain. But this interpretation is of course nonsense. John's purpose in writing the book is that others will proclaim Jesus is their Lord and God.
(John 20:31) "but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (ESV)
(John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (ESV)
"The Word" relates to the Old Testament in the sense that God spoke, he spoke things into existence. He is a personal God. "The Word" is also superior to the Greek concept of an impersonal force that orders the universe.
The Word is Jesus. He has existed eternally, has a personal relationship with God the Father, and Jesus is God. We see that two different persons are referred to as God. We begin to see the teaching of the Trinity. There is one God in three persons. That is three persons of one essence (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Jehovah's Witnesses translate the phrase as "was a god" instead of "was God". But the context clearly shows that the correct translation is "was God".
(John 1:3) "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (ESV)
Jesus was not created, all things were made through him. All that exists besides God was created. Jesus is the Creator, therefore he is God.
(John 1:18) "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." (ESV)
In this verse God is spoken of as two persons just as he was in John 1:1. We see both the Father and the Son. Some translations have "only Son" instead of "only God" but "only God" is found in the earliest manuscripts. Jesus became man (see John 1:14), he has most fully revealed God to us. Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
(John 20:28) "Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (ESV)
Thomas had doubted the resurrection of Christ but when Jesus appeared to him and showed him the marks in his hands and side he proclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus accepts being called Lord and God because that is who he is. This verse is one of the strongest affirmations of the deity of Christ in the New Testament. Some cults who deny the deity of Christ have tried to say it was just a statement of astonishment by Thomas. Basically saying that Thomas was taking the name of the Lord in vain. But this interpretation is of course nonsense. John's purpose in writing the book is that others will proclaim Jesus is their Lord and God.
(John 20:31) "but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (ESV)
Monday, May 29, 2017
Two Books On The Trinity
Non-Christians and Christians alike often seem to be confused about the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a foundational and distinctive teaching of Christianity. Most false religions deny the Biblical teaching on the Trinity. So here are two excellent books on the Trinity.
The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White
Delighting In The Trinity by Michael Reeves
The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White
Delighting In The Trinity by Michael Reeves
Monday, May 15, 2017
Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?
The typical evangelical says without hesitation that yes indeed the Bible should be taught in public schools. But have we really thought this through? Do we really want unbelievers teaching the Bible? If the Bible is taught in public schools will they even get it right? Have we ever considered that a major problem might be government schools in the first place?
If the Bible was taught in public schools they would not get it right. They would not teach it as true, the literal Word of God. They would teach it as mere literature and of course not true. The Bible is literature but it is far more than that. It is the very Word of God: authoritative, inerrant, infallible, and sufficient.
Why do we think government schools are a good idea in the first place? The government should have no control over what children are taught. Do we really want government run Bible teaching? Better solutions would be private schools and home schools.
The government has no business being involved in education at all. In private schools and home schools individuals and not the government would be in control of what is taught. There the Bible could be taught as truth, the Word of God. The entire school curriculum could be taught from a Christian worldview. This would be a much better alternative than the current mess we have with the public schools.
But is this even financially possible? If Christians used their money more wisely it might be. It might require us to stop living the life of luxury and actually make sacrifices.
We must also point out that instead of looking to the public schools, parents and churches should do a much better job of teaching the Bible to children. After all we are not exactly overrun with Bible scholars.
If the Bible was taught in public schools they would not get it right. They would not teach it as true, the literal Word of God. They would teach it as mere literature and of course not true. The Bible is literature but it is far more than that. It is the very Word of God: authoritative, inerrant, infallible, and sufficient.
Why do we think government schools are a good idea in the first place? The government should have no control over what children are taught. Do we really want government run Bible teaching? Better solutions would be private schools and home schools.
The government has no business being involved in education at all. In private schools and home schools individuals and not the government would be in control of what is taught. There the Bible could be taught as truth, the Word of God. The entire school curriculum could be taught from a Christian worldview. This would be a much better alternative than the current mess we have with the public schools.
But is this even financially possible? If Christians used their money more wisely it might be. It might require us to stop living the life of luxury and actually make sacrifices.
We must also point out that instead of looking to the public schools, parents and churches should do a much better job of teaching the Bible to children. After all we are not exactly overrun with Bible scholars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)