Max Andrews at his blog Sententias is developing a new series which he would like to see grow in response to the running series called “Why I am an atheist” from Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers at Pharyngula hosted by Freethought Blogs.

I wanted to start a counter-series here on your story. The series will be, “Why I’m a Christian.” All you would need to do is send me an email … and tell me why you became a Christian and why you continue being a Christian.

Your story can be however long you want it to be. Unless you note otherwise (if you want last name, last initial, anonymity, etc.), I’ll only use your first name.

I hope to spread your stories to demonstrate the glory and work of God in your lives.

Another benefit in doing this is so we can encourage other Christians to persevere in the faith and hopefully some of your stories will resonate with the hearts others—Christian and non-Christian.

See his post here, with an email address for your submissions, which he will post as they come in. Spread the message to all the Christians you know within your own social network—including the offline one, your family, friends, and church.

Not because of who I am, but because of what you’ve done
Not because of what I’ve done but because of who you are

(lyrics from “Who Am I?” by Casting Crowns)

In the comments area to a previous article I had written last year about Christianity being singularly unique in its salvation by grace (and not of works), a visitor left the following question (emphasis mine):

This does not help. I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me. Okay. But if I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct? So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved. Please don’t change and switch words around in order to fit a point of view. This is a very serious matter. So, how am I to truly receive salvation?

I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me.

This is not quite right, for that very belief—if it is a saving faith—is itself something that one receives by what Christ did. That is to say, the very act of believing in Jesus Christ savingly means that you are already in receipt of what he did for you; for God removing your heart of stone (that hated God and loved sin) and replacing it with a heart of flesh (that loves God and hates sin) is a product of the redeeming work that Christ did. It is called regeneration and is a work of God, not of one’s self, by virtue of the fact that it is a change wrought in us and not an act performed by us. If a person believes in Jesus as the Christ for the salvation of his soul, then we can know that such a person has been born of God (1 John 5:1, literally “out of God has been born”). The 1689 London Baptist Confession states that “the grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the Spirit in their hearts” (14.1), and that “the principal acts of saving faith relate in the first instance to Christ, as the believer accepts, receives and rests upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life; and all by virtue of the covenant of grace” (14.2). Repentance and faith are gifts of grace from the Father in heaven bestowed upon all those who he gives to the Son for his sake and glory. No one can come to Christ unless it is granted him by the Father and everyone whom the Father gives the Son is certain to come to him. So the very act of believing in Christ savingly means that you are in receipt of what he did for you already.

(And do not get too hung up on that clause, “if it is a saving faith,” for it is meant to simply distinguish between true belief and false belief, the latter signifying a bare intellectual assent that is not a product of regeneration by the Spirit, and thus that person neither properly apprehends his sinful condition before an holy God nor fully surrenders himself to Jesus as Christ and his sovereign Lord.)

If I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct?

That is not so. The question of whether or not you can be saved is answered by what Christ did, not by what you do. Because of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice you can be saved. So if you do not believe and repent, then you are not saved; but from the fact that you aren’t saved it does not follow that you can’t be saved. You can be, and what Christ did is the reason—not what you do. In Christ alone by grace through faith alone for the glory of God alone.

So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved.

Incorrect. To repent and believe is a fruit of salvation, not the cause thereof. It is not faith that saves, but Christ who saves through faith. There is no work you can do in order to be saved; that is the very reason for and necessity of the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice, apart from whom no one would be reconciled. It is by grace that we are saved through faith—which is the glorious gift of God, so that no one can boast. As Paul writes in Titus 3:4–6, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior” (see also Rom 9:16; cf. v. 11).

So how am I to truly receive salvation?

Through the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice; “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). If anyone thinks there is even a shred of anything they can do in order to be saved, then that person understands neither the unmitigated holiness of God nor the depth of their own sin and their desperate condition apart from the faithfulness of Christ Jesus. The gospel is not a slogan or a simple decision or a formulaic rite that will only take a minute of your time; it is the consuming fire and everlasting power of God under which we recognize with contempt and loathing the black filthiness of our sinful condition and with unquenchable joy and love the inexpressible beauty and glory of Christ, who he is and what he does. An eternity spent at his feet will not be enough to comprehend the depth and scope of the gospel of our Savior King.

“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God. For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling. My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God. … God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. … so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people” (1 Cor 2:1–13; emphasis mine).

“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1Thess 1:4–6; emphasis mine).

What a big question. A question that I wager almost all of us have struggled with at some time. I certainly do not intend to probe the full depth of this question here – at least not in one article. And nor do I think I would be capable of doing it justice, as to study this question only raises a multitude of others that need to be addressed – Who/What is bad? Who/What is good? Why should we expect only good things to happen to good people? Is suffering bad? Is there an objective purpose to our existence? And the list goes on.

Instead, my goal here is far more modest. To share with you a reflection that was motivated by a brief conversation with a friend of mine. A non-Christian as far as I know – yet not someone who I have any reason to think is at all averse to a Christian world view – who, due to some recent personal events, found herself asking, “Why do terrible things happen to the very best of people?”

And I thought, what a question! And then I thought, what an opportunity! And so I began to wonder, if I’m going to respond to that, I don’t merely want to sympathise with her or provide shallow comfort – I suck at that anyway. Instead, I wanted her to think about the question she asked in a deeper way. I don’t know if this is the best way to put it, but as Christians, I think we do have deeper answers to these questions than non-believers. We have a way of looking at the world that many others haven’t considered.

So I rephrased her question from a broader perspective. “Or, why do bad things happen, at all?” I suggested.

“Too true,” she agreed.

At this point another of her friend’s weighed in. “I completely agree. There’s no rhyme or reason,” she said. “The jails are full of much better candidates for some of this stuff. It seems unfair.”

I took this as an opportunity to offer some deeper observations.

“To reflect on events as being good or bad kind of implies that there’s a purpose to life, I think. So when we despair over bad things happening to nice people, we are implying that their purpose is not being fulfilled. In other words, we have an idea that life does have an objective purpose and that death or suffering unfairly prevents us from achieving that purpose. And that, to me, is quite an interesting reflection to explore.”

But I didn’t want to leave it at that. And so I continued. “Do human beings actually have an objective purpose in life, one that is marred by suffering and death? Or is our purpose merely subjective or illusory?”

Presupposing a certain discomfort with the questions, I apologised. “Sorry, I didn’t mean to get all deep on you guys. I just find these natural intuitions that human beings have to be a curious thing, and yet many of us are unable to make sense of them.”

At this point I think the gig was up. Duane was getting all religious again. Well, I wasn’t really. But I didn’t quite know how else to interpret the silence. Perhaps they were concerned where I was heading with this. I’d like to think it was because of the gravity of their thoughts. But I let it rest at that, praying for another opportunity to take every thought captive, in the hope that they may be put into service to point the way to our Lord and Saviour.

(HT: @Shinar_Squirrel)

Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today published an opinionated response to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler who seized upon Congressman Anthony Weiner entering “treatment” to make a point about Jesus Christ being the only answer for the problem of sin. Mohler tweeted the following on June 11, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Grossman’s scurrilous opinion piece about Mohler began by describing his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at Jews like Weiner and other non-Christians.” That sounds rather scandalous, does it not? But if you remove her spurious histrionics about Jews it loses all its force. For instance, consider if Grossman had instead described his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians.” But that risks representing Mohler and his tweet accurately—gasp!—which targeted Weiner as a person, not as a Jew. And in a subsequent blog post Mohler also points that out. “I never mentioned Judaism,” he writes. “Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation” (emphasis mine).

As she goes on to characterize Mohler’s tweet (in this and another article), notice how persistently Grossman harps on Jews and Weiner being Jewish:

• “… an evangelism tactic … aimed at people like Jews such as Weiner …”
• “What he told the Jewish congressman was …”
• “So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a Jewish person in crisis as a sermon springboard … Right?”
• “He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is Jewish …”
• “… a turn-or-burn message addressed to a Jewish person …”

The fact that Weiner is Jewish was never a relevant point in Mohler’s tweet. And if she were to give it even a moment’s thought Grossman ought to realize that. The relevant point was that Weiner as a person struggled with a particular sin and chose to seek “treatment” to make himself well, which can never work apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers. She can make a big fuss about this person being Jewish or that one being Muslim but at the end of the day she has a battlefield full of straw men of her own making, none of them being relevant to Mohler’s gospel point which stands irrespective of the religion of this or that person, Weiner included. It is about people inescapably being sinners regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and so forth.

Consider the following rewrite and notice how her opinion piece loses just about all of its scandalous punch when the spurious histrionics about Jews is removed (the underlined text indicates where I made a change):

One of the nation’s top Southern Baptist leaders takes sexting-pol Anthony Weiner’s case as a chance to throw an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians. … This reads as an evangelism tactic, riding in on the Weiner headlines but aimed at people like Weiner, Woods, and many others, such as Weiner’s wife, who hold different ideas about salvation, different approaches to atonement.

And a rewrite of her follow-up piece:

What he told the congressman was, “There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” … So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a person in crisis as a sermon springboard to preach to his known flock to return to traditional faith. Right? But he didn’t begin “Dear Christians…” He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is a sinner … Evangelism is Mohler’s job description: He is charged with preaching the Good News, as Christians believe it, to the world and using every vehicle he can, even the sad case of #Weinergate in Twitterspeak… So, it would be no surprise if many read a message that starts, “Dear Congressman Weiner,” as a turn-or-burn message addressed to a person in the public domain.

All of a sudden Weiner being Jewish is irrelevant—as it always was. With all of her spurious histrionics about Jews removed, all of a sudden Grossman is reporting about an evangelist addressing a sinner about the necessity of being in Christ in order to “make himself well” (which Weiner’s spokesman Risa Heller said his aim is). Apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ no “treatment” will save him from his carnality and sin. This goes for everyone, completely irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.

References:

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 12). “Baptist to Jewish Weiner: Christ is the only ‘treatment’.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 15). “Baptist leader stands by ‘Christian love’ for Weiner.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Mohler, Albert (2011, June 14). “Theology, therapy, Twitter, and the scandal of the gospel.” AlbertMohler.com.
http://www.albertmohler.com

How Deep The Father’s Love For Us ~ Phillips, Craig and Dean

How deep the Father’s love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
And make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which marr the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the man upon the cross
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

Why should I gain from His reward
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

… It was my sin.

Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

Matthew 27:37-42 (New International Version)

It wasn’t the nails that held him there, but, as the famous John Newton hymn goes, “It was my sin that held him there, until it was accomplished. His dying breath has brought me life….” Despite the mocking challenge of the chief priests to get down and save himself, he stayed on the cross. He stayed there, held, not by nails, but by his own will.

“…I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 10:17-18 (New International Version)

Therefore, be thankful this Easter, for your Lord who laid down his life has risen for you who trust in him.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 (New International Version)

Yes, he is risen!

In response to opposition of same-sex marriage, an often used retort from homosexual activists and their supporters is “Same-sex marriage will not affect you, so why not let homosexuals marry each other?”

Firstly, as Bill Muehlenburg wrote in his book “WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage”, the evidence shows that countries with pro-homosexual legislation and same-sex marriage have been a disaster for heterosexual marriage and the well-being of children. Consider Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, who has a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard University, has documented how marriage and children have suffered there. In 2004 he wrote:

Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of firstborn children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend towards the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern – including gay marriage – is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was [already] increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable.

Later in 2006, Kurtz wrote:

Shifting to a broad ‘menu’ of experimental family forms may feel liberating to some, but it is really a recipe for thinning out society’s commitment to children. Each unconventional experiment reinforces the others, ultimately yielding a significantly less stable family regime. Which is to say, gay marriage undermines marriage.

Read the rest of this entry

We all need our thinking to be renewed and reversed before we can come to accept the majesty and power and saving grace of the Gospel of Christ and before we realize the folly and meaninglessness of the atheistic worldview.

H/Tip: Active Christian Media

Abdu Murray is a Muslim who converted from Islam to Christianity. In an interview (Oct 17, 2010) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at Stand to Reason, Abdu shares a conundrum he had which triggered his journey from Islam and, eventually, into Christianity. 

Abdu was reading the Qur’an when he came across Surah 5:47 “Let the people of the gospel judge according to what God has revealed in it. And whoever judges not by what God has sent down, those are the transgressors.” Having been raised to believe that the Qur’an is God’s dictation in Arabic – which means that every word, verb tense, and grammar is perfect, and that the Bible had been corrupted before the Qur’an came and that the Qur’an had come to correct those corruptions - Abdu realises this is saying, in 7th-Century Saudi Arabia, the gospel existed for people to go and look at, and to judge it as the word of God; as a source of divine truth.

His conundrum was this: Why would God refer them to a corrupted version of the gospel? If the Bible was once God’s Word and it then became corrupted, two things follow. Either God couldn’t keep it from being corrupted or He wouldn’t keep it from being corrupted. If He couldn’t, then He is inept and not omnipotent but rather impotent. If He wouldn’t, then the very revelation in the Qur’an, that affirms the Bible, may not be revelation and why would we trust anything He has to say. 

Therefore, Abdu concluded that the Bible had not been corrupted at the time of the writing of the Qur’an in the 7^th century. From there it was a simple task to find out if the Bible of the 7^th century is the same as the Bible we have today. It was. And the evidence pointed to it being the same for centuries before as well. 

At this point Abdu was forced to believe, based on his faith in the Qur’an and his faith in evidence, that the Bible is the uncorrupted Word.

This conundrum is explored further in Alan Shlemon’s “Ambassadors’ guide to Islam” booklet (available from Stand to Reason www.str.org). In this booklet Alan identifies a logical argument with regard to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings and is highly recommended by Abdu Murray.

1. The Qur’an says the words of God cannot be changed or corrupted. Surah 6:34, 6:115 and 10:64
2. The Qur’an says the Bible is the Word of God. Surah 2:136 and 29:46
3. Therefore, on the Qur’an’s authority, the Bible could not have been changed or corrupted, as many Muslims claim

If you would like to learn more about Abdu Murray and his ministry – Aletheia International,  you can visit his website at  http://embracethetruth.org/

The following reflection is based on a article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, called Ready to Reason. I found it particularly helpful and I hope that you will also, regardless of the particular approach to apologetics that you favour most.

Paul writes to the Christians at Corinth, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” – 2 Cor 10:5 (NIV)

Similarly Peter writes, But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” – 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)

Apart from being the two of the most popular passages used in support of the need for apologetics, they are also a key focus of our ministry here at The Aristophrenium. We believe that God has called upon us as believers to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers. Similarly, Dr. Bahnsen says that the necessity of apologetics is not a divine necessity, but a moral one. “God has chosen to do His work through us and called us to it. Apologetics is the special talent of some believers, and the interested hobby of others. But it is the God-ordained responsibility of all believers.” Later in the article Dr. Bahnsen explains it this way:

Read the rest of this entry