Some time ago I was working through CS Lewis’s classic, The Problem of Pain. In it there is one line that I lifted out of its pages and plugged into my Twitter timeline – and shortly after that there started some dialogue with a fellow (we’ll call him Pete) who believed that the statement I offered was contradictory and he subsequently mocked it as such.

Well, either this Pete is a very intelligent man and CS Lewis was an idiotic fool or, quite probably, the quote I tweeted was most likely misunderstood.

Speaking on the necessity of God’s love for us and of the characteristic of God’s love for us, I echoed Lewis’s sentiment and tweeted:

[It is because God] already loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable.

Moments after I shared this on Twitter, I received this reply from Pete: “lol contradiction is faith”.

When I inquired as to how the statement was contradictory, Pete wrote back that “If you’re lovable, you don’t need to be made lovable. You already are”.

Now that might sound reasonable, but I believe it misses the point entirely, let alone misreads what was actually tweeted (which was that God’s love for us compels him to make us even more lovable). Lewis was not stating that God already saw us as lovable. In an effort to correct Pete and to point this out, I tweeted: “Love seeks to perfect the object of its love”.

What did I mean by this? Parents know this all too well. When your child is born you love your child not for anything that your child has done, nor even for how adorable your child may be. I should think that you love your child simply because you choose to love your child – the word “lovable” doesn’t really come into it at this point. When your child wakes crying at 1am in the morning, then again at 2.30am, and yet again an hour later, as a parent, the word “lovable” isn’t the exact word that enters your head. But as a parent you do attend to your child out of the love you have for him / her – again, not for anything your child has done to deserve it.

Where I believe Pete erred is that he equated the term “lovable” to be a prerequisite in order to love. In other words, on his view, you cannot love someone unless that someone has a quality that you find lovable. Another problem in defining the term “lovable” in this fashion is that the definition is purely arbitrary – what I find lovable might well be unlovable to you.

God does not see us as “lovable” in this sense at all. In fact, God has some pretty strong words for how He does view us: He hates the sinner; we are far from being lovable (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Leviticus 20:23).

Paradoxically, God loves us immensely (John 3:16, John 15:13). He cannot love us for what we are – rebellious, wanton, unruly, sinful – for God is holy and his holiness will not tolerate what is impure. So what does Lewis’s statement, it “[is because God already] loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable” then actually mean?

Part of the implication of Lewis’s statement is that discipline is involved in the act of love. It has to be: without discipline, love is not love at all. Without discipline, love morphs into an act of, as Lewis says elsewhere in The Problem of Pain, a Benevolent Grandfather who’s sole intent is to please his grandchildren; this type of love leaves unruly behaviour unchecked; and unruly behaviour left unchecked leads to the development of selfish and self-centred adults.

God’s love for us is far removed from that of the Benevolent Grandfather’s; God’s love is richer and purer. God’s holy love entails discipline. As the writer of Hebrews writes:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11, emphasis mine.)

So this is what Lewis means when he says that it is out of God’s love for us – his desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people – that God must work at making us lovable, more perfect, more like his son Jesus. This is why I responded to Pete that Love seeks to perfect the object of its love, to desire the very best – God requires that we be perfect for he is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Yet the only way we can be perfect is for God to work on us to become so and it is out of his love for us that he “labours” to achieve this (Heb 12:5-8).

God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, so that through Jesus’ cleansing blood we become perfect in his eyes and, as a result, become truly, purely, lovable through and through.

[The following article was paraphrased and summarised from an interview with John MacArthur entitled “When believers stop believing: Portrait of an Apostate”¹]

No.

If you once professed faith and now don’t, then you were never saved to begin with.

People who believe it is possible to lose your salvation are usually brought to that position because of people like Charles Templeton. It isn’t because they find it in the Scriptures. It’s because they’re trying to explain how someone could be a Christian one day and not the next day. There are massive amounts of Christians around the world who think you can lose your salvation and they’ve got people to prove you can. We need to look at this issue Biblically to try to help those people who might be drawn to that conclusion because of people they know who denied the faith. Read the rest of this entry

I had a Facebook conversation with a friend of a friend, Sylwia, a while back and I thought I would share it with you. As you can see, the conversation focused mainly on love and salvation with us coming to the conclusion at the end that we are talking about different Gods. I’ll leave it up to you to decide for yourselves who you think has a more accurate portrait of the one true God.

Ashleigh: Just saw some crazy Christian guy on a street corner, yelling at people about Jesus and sin. I understand having faith – I do too and I’m thankful that Jesus died for me and my sin, but you shouldn’t yell at people who don’t and tell them they’re going to hell. It’s not really the right way to go about it..

This guy wasn’t being gentle at all. And there were 2 guys with him, holding signs and one of them actually said God HATES drunks and homosexuals. It wasn’t getting a good response from the crowd

Sylwia: God loves drunks and homosexuals the people themselves, but not the action of sin. Makes me so annoyed that people miss the point, and then others think because of it that the message contradicts itself…. Hate doesn’t make other people love, only loving others despite their failings can do that :)

Ashleigh: That’s right! It’s not a Christian’s job to judge, so I think people like that should just shut up because they make the rest of us look bad

Sylwia: Exactly :)

Adam: I thought that’s what Jesus and his apostles did…went to various town and addressed the crowds. The language used may have been different but there was still condemnation of sinners. Jesus turned almost everyone off due to his witness to the truth. Read the rest of this entry

For those who are not familiar with Louis Ruggiero, he runs an apologetics website called the King Messiah Project. He is quite Arminian in his theology, and has been charged by some of being a Pelagian (although he denies this charge). He is known primarily for his diatribes against Calvinism. For example, some time back, he and Matt Slick tried to set up a debate on Total Depravity, but the debate was scrapped because Lou would not stick to the topic at hand. More recently, he has published a book called The God of Calvinism: A Rebuttal of Reformed Theology. He attempts to present it as a rebuttal to Dr. White’s The Potter’s Freedom, and interestingly enough, the foreword is written by none other than Ergun M. Caner. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of the book with me right now (although one of my friends who has dialogued with Ruggiero before does, and perhaps I can borrow it from him). So, until I can get my hands on the book, I will instead deal with an article he has posted on his website titled, Refuting the Tulip With the Fear of the LORD.[1]

Read the rest of this entry

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
(James 2:14-26, ESV)

For many of those who reject the historic Protestant doctrine of Justification through faith alone (such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Churches of Christ, and Latter-Day Sains, among others), James 2:14-26 is generally brought out the most commonly cited passage against Sola Fide in favour of a doctrine of Justification that includes meritorious works in addition to faith. Now, this verse (or at least the works-based interpretation of it) would appear to contradict other parts of scripture, such as Romans 3:28, which states that “a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” This has even led some to conclude that James was actually trying to contradict Paul (ignoring the fact that James and Paul were addressing two different audiences with two very different problems at hand). Thus, the apparent contradiction between James 2 with other passages such as Romans 3:28 should be resolved by careful exegesis and looking at the entirety of scripture in its proper context. Perhaps this would be a good time to take a look at James 2 and how this relates to justification.

Read the rest of this entry

From Mark Driscoll’s Trial Series – Part 12: Suffering to Learn.

The money quote: “…if you were baptised and you don’t have faith in Jesus, then all you got was wet, not saved.”

For the sake of those who might be surprised to find out, you actually can present what the gospel says in bold and clear terms on atheist message boards. (And in my opinion, only by presenting it boldly and clearly.) The following is a brief exchange between me and an atheist (who we’ll call Anthony) which ensued after I had described one thing that makes Christianity unique or sets it apart in the marketplace of religions. I hope the following can be instructive, in some small way, for those who find themselves with an opportunity to present what the gospel is to unbelievers.

RYFT (Christian):

Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; that is, every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is not based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because “a balance of good works” is precisely that: a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God’s holy law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, “Well, aside from these laws you have broken you’re an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you.” It would be unjust to not punish guilty criminals. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands crime be punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

ANTHONY (Atheist):

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

RYFT:

Since that is a crude caricature that fails to reflect what I had said, there is nothing for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don’t have.

ANTHONY:

But you said Christianity is based on belief and grace, rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him, which is a human act. Would that be a fair assessment?

RYFT:

I had said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God’s grace, not human works.

Moreover, that is not a fair assessment, but a wildly inaccurate one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. A person is not saved because he believes, but because of what Christ did.

It’s not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’ finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. Under biblical Christianity, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief (itself a sin) man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

ANTHONY:

You’re not making any sense. First you say, “Belief in God does not save anyone.” But then you say, “Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.” So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God). Or am I getting this wrong?

(And that quote from White? Niiiice!)

RYFT:

You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.

(1) Salvation is through Christ alone—by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe because that’s whose sins Christ’s death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own.

So then it is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ’s life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.

If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I’ve made it clear, but only you can tell me.

ANTHONY:

It’s a bit confusing? You say it’s not your belief that saves you, but then you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

RYFT:

Well, not quite: “you would not be able to be saved without” Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

ANTHONY:

Got it.