Jeremy
Jesus’ teaching about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit proves that not all will be saved:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NASB): “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Mark 3:28-29 (NASB): “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
Luke 12:10 (NASB): “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
In the passage in Mark, Jesus sharply contrasts pardonable sins with the unpardonable sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The use of the Greek word “de,” meaning “but,” shows this contrast. Christ goes on to say that the one committing this sin is guilty of an “eternal sin.” The adjective aiwnios is used to modify the noun “sin.” The contrast would make no sense if aiwnios described the sin as merely “temporary,” for that would place it in the category of forgivable sins mentioned just before. In that case, though, we would end up with this nonsensical translation:
“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has forgiveness, but is guilty of a temporary sin.”
The Lord’s point here, which cannot be overlooked, is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit belongs to a particular category of sin that is unpardonable. As such, it is an eternal sin.
The passage from Luke brings out the same contrast: Forgivable sins are diametrically opposed to the sin that will not be forgiven: “…but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
Again, if this sin were to be forgiven at some point in the future, then the contrast in the passage would be completely overturned, and we would end up with this nonsensical translation: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will be forgiven him.”
If they were all in the same category, how could there be a contrast?
This text clearly affirms that not all will be saved. It is an unpleasant truth, but its unpleasantness does not make it any less true.
The passage in Matthew is somewhat different but no less interesting. Again there is a clear contrast (using the Greek particle “de,” meaning “but”) between the types of sins that can be forgiven and the type of sin that cannot be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As in the Mark passage, if this sin could one day be forgiven, then the contrast between the two types of sins becomes meaningless.
What is even more illuminating, however, is that Christ goes on to say that this sin will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come.” This has significant impact upon other passages in Scripture that refer to a period of future punishment. If the sin is eternal—and again, the sharp contrast between this sin and pardonable sins shows that it is—then the “age to come,” to which Christ refers, cannot be a temporary one but must indicate an age without end.
We see the same use of the word “age” in another passage in Mark—chapter 10, verses 29–30:
“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age (aiwni) to come, eternal (aiwnion) life.”
Note what the Lord says the reward will be in the age to come: eternal life. If there is eternal life in this future age, then the age itself must be without end. On the other hand, if that age to come is not without end but only temporary, then the life that is rewarded to these believers would also be temporary. That, however, contradicts the Lord’s statement in this passage.
As appealing as universalism is to many, it never entered the mind of God. Scripture clearly teaches that not all will be saved.
Universalism—the teaching that all will be saved and the denial of eternal, conscious punishment in hell—can certainly be appealing. After all, the concept of people suffering endless agony on account of their sins is not pleasant to consider. It is far more pleasant to imagine that God will save all people eventually regardless of what they have done in this life. At the end of the day, though, what will stand is the truth that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write in Scripture, and the truth is that there will indeed be a dreadful place where those who have rejected Christ their whole lives will suffer punishment without end.
One of the clearest proofs of eternal punishment is found in the words of Jesus Himself about Judas Iscariot: “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Matthew 26:24, NASB)
To say that it would have been good for Judas if he had not been born is a very strong statement. The “woe” that awaited Christ’s betrayer must have been so horrific as to make nonexistence a good thing. Thus, this statement militates against two popular ideas held by those who oppose the doctrine of eternal punishment: annihilation and future remedial punishment. Jesus’ words rule out the idea of annihilation because that is the very state of nonexistence that he says would have been good for Judas. His words negate the idea of future remedial punishment because having never been born could not be regarded as good compared to a remedial chastening that would eventually lead to eternal blessedness. Since Judas Iscariot’s fate cannot be annihilation or remedial punishment, it must be eternal punishment.
One way that universalists try to get around this is to point out that in the Greek the text actually reads, “…it would have been good for him if that man had not been born.” Universalists argue that Christ was using the pronoun “him” to refer back to himself, so that the meaning would read, “It would have been good for me (Jesus) if that man (Judas) had not been born.” According to this view, Christ meant that if Judas had never been born, He (Christ) would not have had to endure the anguish in Gethsemane and the subsequent agonies of the crucifixion.
The universalists are right in their point that the pronoun “him” is used. Here it is in the Greek, with the pronoun boldfaced:
ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι’ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται· καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος
A more literal rendering of the final sentence above would be:
| good | was | for him | if | not | was born | that man |
| καλὸν | ἦν | αὐτῷ | εἰ | οὐκ | ἐγεννήθη | ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος |
So the universalists are correct at least about that. The problem is that the pronoun, being masculine in gender and singular in number, could be referring to either Jesus or Judas. It is more likely, though, to be referring to Judas because the phrase “that man,” which also refers to the betrayer, occurs in the very same sentence.
There is something else in the text, however, that strongly points to the fact that the pronoun “him” refers to Judas. Let’s look at the text again:
“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
Jesus pronounced a woe upon “that man” (τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ, TWi ANTHRWPWi EKEINWi). Who was that man? Clearly it was Judas because of the prepositional phrase that immediately follows: “by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!” The only person ever indicated in the Bible as betraying Christ was Judas, so there can be no question that he was the one who faced this woe.
That alone, however, is not enough. It still doesn’t tell us for sure whom the pronoun “him” refers to. But knowing that Christ made a point of pronouncing a woe upon Judas, we have to ask: Would it make sense for Christ to pronounce this woe upon Judas but then abruptly, in the next breath, start talking about what was good for Himself? Not really. Look at more of the passage:
20Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
21As they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.”
22Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, “Surely not I, Lord?”
23And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
24“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
25And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself.”
The subject of this passage is the betrayal that Christ was to face and its consequences for the betrayer. That is the point of the passage. What might have been good for Christ is not in view at all in this text. To claim this is to say that Christ shifted gears in the middle of his talk, first speaking of the woe that would come to Judas, then abruptly changing the subject to speak of what was good for Himself, and then just as abruptly switching back to speak of Judas. This goes against the logical flow of the text. First Christ states, “woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!” and then immediately expands on that with these words: “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” For Christ to first speak of the woe awaiting Judas and then immediately change the subject to address what would be good for Himself would make no sense. Therefore, the idea that Christ was referring to himself is a forced interpretation.
Finally, the broader context of the Bible shows that it is highly unlikely that Christ would have considered Judas’ nonexistence to be good for Him. Jesus would have had to endure the cross no matter what. It was God’s will that this should happen. Thus, even if Judas had never been born, God would have definitely used some other means to bring Christ to the anguish and suffering of the cross. The agonies that Christ faced were inevitable, and he knew it well. He knew that the very reason for his coming into the world was to give up his life for sinful people: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28, NASB).
In light of this, Christ would not have said that He would have benefited by Judas’ nonexistence. It would be like a condemned criminal on his way to the electric chair, saying, “It would be good for me if that electric chair did not exist.” This would be a ridiculous statement because even if the governing authorities didn’t have the electric chair, they would carry out his death sentence in some other way. The man is doomed to die, and so he will die no matter what. So it was with Christ: Even if Judas had never been born— which could not have happened because it was part of God’s plan that he should betray Christ—God would have surely created some other sure means whereby Christ would have been betrayed. Christ’s mission of death for sin was inevitable.
The only sensible interpretation is that Judas’ nonexistence would have been good for Judas, and that because of the woe that Christ referred to earlier in the same sentence.
Some universalists object in another way, though, suggesting that the woe referred merely to Judas’ inner anguish due to guilt or fear of judgment. But no matter how intense such inner suffering might be, it could never make nonexistence good for him if he would be saved in the end, for in that case, even if he had to face the most horrible subjective anguish or future judgment before reaching salvation, he would still end up one day in eternal blessedness. Having never been born, however, would mean that he would miss out on this everlasting blessedness, eternal glory, unending fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and all the other myriad, indescribable joys of being in heaven forever. Therefore, in this view nonexistence could not have been good for him.
In addition, the grammar of the passage demands that the woe be interpreted as objective. The phrase, “but woe to that man” is “οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ.” The emphasized words in Greek are in English “the man,” and they are in the singular dative, indicating not what is inside the man but rather what will be to that man. It is a woe that will happen to him, not in him.
I can remember the television game show from the 70s, Family Feud, hosted by Richard Dawson. When a contestant gave an answer, he would turn to the display board and call out loudly, “Survey says…!” after which the answer would appear.
Consulting surveys might work on a game show, but should we consult them to determine the validity of a Christian practice as important as evangelism?
I came across a blog today that spoke in favor of friendship evangelism, defending it on the basis of a survey that found, as the blogger stated, “80 percent of people said they came to faith in Christ through a friendship.”
While I understand that surveys have a certain weight of authority, I find it disconcerting that one is trusted so much. Can it have more authority than inspired Scripture? After all, surveys are only as good as the reliability of the people who are being questioned, and those people are fallible. They may say they came to faith, but how can we be certain that they have not been misled into thinking that they have genuine saving faith? Were they truly converted? How do we know for sure? We cannot just take somebody’s fallible word for it. We have to rely on Scripture as our sole infallible authority, interpreting all human findings in its light.
When we do turn to Scripture, we see that the use of friendship as a tool to win the lost is not even hinted at in the Bible. The blogger I mentioned made the point that Jesus made evangelism some sort of discipleship process, using relationships as the conduit through which he taught the truth. A certain aspect of this was true in the case of his disciples, since he did in fact teach them throughout his relationship with them. Having said that, it must be quickly pointed out that nowhere in the gospel accounts are we told that Christ pursued pre-teaching, pre-evangelistic relationship-building–either with his disciples or with anyone else he preached to. The same is true of the apostles: Preaching was the chief priority for them, as Paul made clear about his ministry in 1 Cor. 9:16 and the other apostles made clear by their examples in the book of Acts. When they pursued relationships with people, it was with those who were responding favorably to their preaching.
So, there is a contradiction between the survey and the Bible. The survey implies that friendship evangelism is spiritually effective while cold-contact evangelism has very little effect at all. The Bible, however, says nothing about the former while speaking of preaching and cold-contact evangelism favorably throughout its pages. Which, then, should we trust? They both cannot be right. If we believe that the Bible is inspired and because of that inspiration it has divine authority, then we must submit to its teaching and not a man-made survey that is entirely dependent on the word of fallible human beings.
To give this blogger credit, he did say this:
Furthermore, true friendship is what is needed here. We cannot claim to be someone’s true friend unless we share with them what gives us life and joy. At the same time, our intention is to be their friend, not to get some sort of badge for getting another one saved. Discipleship is a relational, friendship dynamic.
That raises an important question, though: Must we have a friendship with someone in order to tell them the good news? If we say yes, we are doing many a grave disservice because we cannot have a friendship with everyone. It cannot be overstated: Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever considered or made friendship a prerequisite for evangelism.
One final point should be made regarding this topic. Surveys cannot be trusted to determine what is spiritually effective in evangelism for the simple reason that we cannot understand how God increases his kingdom. This is, for the most part, a mystery to us. Jesus made that clear:
The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come. (Mark 4:26-29, ESV)
The church needs to stop trying to figure out the kingdom of God scientifically and instead simply do what God says: Proclaim the gospel.
Great quote from this sermon: “If you’re properly preaching the gospel, it will be scandalous, and if you try to make it less of a scandal you no longer preach the gospel.”
How should we do outreach? When should we proclaim the gospel, and when should we reach out in acts of love and kindness? Is there any particular order in which we should do them?
To answer these questions, many rightly point to the example of Christ. In his public ministry, Jesus befriended sinners so much that his enemies called him “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). He mingled closely with the very ones who were despised by the self-righteous religious leaders of his day. This fact, many say, teaches us that Christ went out of his way to build friendships with the lost. Since we should follow Christ’s example, we should also strive to build relationships with unbelievers around us.
Certainly we should strive to follow Christ’s example when possible. To do so, however, we need to make sure we realize the full extent of what he did. In other words, if we say we are going to follow Christ’s example, then we’d better go all the way with it, at least with respect to the areas of his ministry that we are able to imitate. Although we don’t perform miracles such as multiplying loaves and fishes, curing the blind, raising the dead, and healing the sick, there are two major aspects of his ministry that we can, in fact, imitate: preaching and relationships. The challenge for us is to avoid elevating one of these over the other.
When we examine Christ’s ministry carefully, we can see that his mingling with the unrighteous was always accompanied by preaching and teaching. Jesus’ verbal ministry received equal emphasis alongside of his mercy ministry. His teaching on the kingdom of God and the gospel was never crowded out by his relationships. On the contrary, the relationships were always developed in the context of his teaching ministry, not apart from it. In fact, there is strong evidence that he regarded his preaching as the main reason for his ministry:
And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” (Mark 1:38, ESV)
Let’s follow Christ’s example faithfully, reaching out in both word and deed. Mercy ministry without the verbal proclamation of the gospel is not evangelism, while preaching the gospel without acts of mercy is failing to “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10, ESV). Although it’s not always possible to do both, we should strive to keep this twofold goal uppermost in our minds as we do outreach.
It has been said regarding evangelism that there are many ways to share the gospel with the lost. “There is no single way to evangelize,” many will claim. In one sense this is true, but statements like this need some qualification. On their own, they could easily be interpreted as supporting a very libertarian, “whatever works” attitude toward evangelism. The risk with this is that we might make the mistake of thinking that even methods of outreach that don’t mention the gospel message at all count as evangelism.
That would be a tragic error, though. Nothing can be known about God unless he first reveals it to us. If God chose to never disclose any truth about himself, we would be totally in the dark about him. We would not have the slightest inkling about God, what he expects of us, how we are to be saved, and more. Therefore, revelation is absolutely vital and indispensable for saving faith. It follows, then, that saving faith must be a response to divine revelation, and revelation only.
If the above is true, and if it is also true that the gospel is a divinely revealed message, then that message about Christ is non-negotiable. That means that activities that do not communicate the gospel, such as inviting unsaved people over for dinner or living out a pious life before the world, though fine in and of themselves, do not constitute evangelism because they lack revelation. If my life were a paragon of morality and all my nonChristian associates stood in awe of my holiness, and I had the most vibrant, compelling testimony to share with the unbelieving world, yet I never communicated the gospel verbally to them, they would not know what to believe in to be saved. That would be outreach without a message from God, which is no outreach at all.
Although it is true that there isn’t just one way to evangelize, it is also true that there is a single common denominator to all genuine evangelism: the revelation of God, specifically, the gospel message. Evangelism is the proclamation of God’s revelation about Christ, the only way of salvation. To omit the message, then, is to omit the very thing that makes evangelism what it is.
The church has been given the responsibility to make disciples of all the nations. We are not given the option to hold back the gospel message in favor of some other activity. Mankind’s desperate need for revelation simply does not allow for that, so whatever means we use, we must be sure to begin with the gospel message and continue teaching it. Revelation, by its very definition and nature, must be predominant, central, and of first priority.
In my earlier series on friendship evangelism, I made the argument that this approach to outreach is insincere because those who befriend nonChristians to gain an opportunity to present the gospel are operating from an ulterior motive. They have a gospel card up their sleeve, as it were. Christians should avoid this kind of offense at all times, especially when communicating the gospel. If we love our neighbor, we will not manipulate him.
Recently I came across a counterargument on a blog in which the writer stated that this was not wrong because all friendships are begun with some kind of self-centered motive. We expect companionship or some other benefit from the friendship. Therefore, the argument concludes, friendship evangelism is no worse than any other friendship because it, too, is driven by a goal of some kind.
At first glance this counterargument appears strong, but it quickly falls apart under scrutiny. While it is true that all friendships are begun with some kind of expectation, such as the desire for companionship, it is not true that this expectation is hidden. It is always understood by each person entering the friendship that the relationship will benefit himself or herself in some way. Everyone understands and expects that a friendship will provide certain general benefits to all involved. There is no secret motive.
That is not the case at all with friendship evangelism, however. In this approach to outreach, as it is commonly taught and practiced, the Christian is not to disclose the real reason for the “friendship” at the outset, hiding his intention of communicating the gospel so as to first build trust (as if that could somehow bring the nonChristian closer to receiving Christ). In short, in friendship evangelism, the Christian is to hide the gospel behind friendship. That alone should be enough to convince us that friendship evangelism is not evangelism at all, since it does not even proclaim the gospel message! How can any outreach be called evangelism when it keeps silent about the message of Christ?
In spite of this, the vast majority of evangelical Christians seem determined to use this method. Why don’t they use the Word of God, which is the very means by which he brings about the new birth? James wrote,
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18, ESV)
How does God bring about the new birth? by friendship? by our building trust and emotional connections with unbelievers first? No. He brings about the second birth through the word of truth. That is what God has revealed to us in Scripture. Why, then, are so many in the church so determined to avoid using the very means God says is instrumental in salvation?
Over the years, I have theorized that many Christians do this because they are ashamed of the gospel and held in bondage by the fear of man. I have not always been completely certain about this, but the more time passes the more I become convinced that this is at least a major factor. The church needs to stop trying to please the world by hiding the gospel behind friendship. Jesus said:
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. (Matthew 10:24-25, ESV)
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (John 15:19-21, ESV)
Therefore, we need to proclaim the gospel boldly, not shrinking away from the suffering it will surely cause us sooner or later. We are called, not to please the world, but to proclaim the gospel to it. Whenever we try to please people, inevitably the gospel ends up being pushed into the background. “If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10, ESV). Pleasing the world and proclaiming the gospel don’t make good companions. One will inevitably be chosen over the other.
Anyone who has shared the Gospel with others has probably heard that familiar demand: “Prove that the Bible is the word of God.” The naturalistic assumptions driving such a demand are staggering. When people demand such proof, usually what they want is some empirical proof that they can test with their senses. Thus, they are assuming that empiricism is the default standard for determining truth of any kind. In other words, they assume that all truth propositions can be—and must be—evaluated using the natural senses alone.
But before the empiricist can proceed along this line, he or she must prove first that empiricism really is the standard by which to judge all truth claims. Sadly, though, they usually do not make any attempt to establish this, assuming at the very outset that science is the measure of all things and, operating on that presupposition, putting theists on trial and on the defensive.
The task of proving anything is actually quite a tricky business and not nearly as simple as the naturalist or empiricist may think. The problem is that as soon as you appeal to something to establish a belief, that thing you appealed to now becomes your authority—call it authority A. If you then appeal to yet something else to establish authority A, then that new thing to which you have appealed has now become your higher authority—authority B. If you continued like this, you would go on forever in infinite regress. Nobody does that, though, so all people have some starting point, some point beyond which they do not go, some unprovable foundation on which they build their belief system. Otherwise they could never form any beliefs at all, scientific or otherwise. In this respect, everyone is on the same footing, whether they are evolutionists, scientists, theists, atheists, Christians, and so on.
For example, if a person claims to rely on just plain facts—no feelings, no personal interpretations, but just the facts—on what authority does he establish that those facts are true—by reasoning? If so, does he establish reasoning by something other than reason? If not, then he has made reason his ultimate authority, but that begs the question: Are his reasoning capabilities beyond error? Of course not! But if that is the case, why would he make it his ultimate authority, his starting point? He does so because he wants to.
Perhaps another person’s ultimate authority is empiricism. Perhaps she thinks that all knowledge comes through the senses. But the same question I asked about reasoning also applies to empiricism: Is it beyond error? Are our senses always reliable? A green shirt, for example, appears to have the color green, but in reality it doesn’t have one bit of green in it. All it’s doing is reflecting that color from the spectrum of light that is falling upon it. Our senses can deceive us in other ways, too. I’ve heard of people who, after having a limb amputated, actually sensed that the amputated limb was still there. So the same question could be asked of the empiricist, namely: If empiricism is fallible, why would someone make it their ultimate authority? And we end up with the same answer: She does so because she wants to.
And if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, can empiricism be proven empirically? Or can the need for proof be proven?
It is important at this point to clarify that none of the above is meant to say that people may believe whatever they want; the point is that people do believe whatever they want. Thus, none of the foregoing comments endorse the idea that it is morally correct to believe in whatever we feel like. The point is that human beings are so constituted that they believe whatever they desire, without complete proof. Everyone—including the atheist—is a person of faith.
In my opinion, this is where so many in the scientific community go wrong, especially atheists. They are not right to claim or imply that Christians are at some kind of disadvantage because they rely on faith while they (the atheists or skeptics) allegedly examine the straight facts in an unbiased manner. The truth is that they are not neutral at all. Their beliefs ultimately rest on some unprovable authority, and that because of their own personal presuppositions. That is certain because that authority cannot be substantiated by any higher authority. Otherwise it would no longer be the ultimate authority.
Of course, this does not mean that science is worthless. On the contrary, science is very useful when and where it applies. That, of course, is the restriction: where it applies. The physical world—all that is subject to the physical senses—lies within the domain and jurisdiction of science. The unseen world, however, lies outside its domain. To say that God does not exist, for example, merely because God has not been empirically discerned would be like saying that the planet Pluto had not existed prior to its discovery in 1930. Someone or something does not have to be discerned in order to exist. Reality is not created by the senses. Thus, science has no right or authority to declare dogmatically the truth or untruth of any religious, spiritual claim.
When I engage in evangelistic discussions, I start with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired, living Word of God. I don’t proceed with a “The Bible is true because…” approach but rather “Thus says the LORD.” If I were to attempt to prove the reliability of the Bible using some extrabiblical authority, such as my own reasoning, then I would be making that authority a higher authority than the Bible. God’s word, however, is not subject to the judgment of men. Herman Bavinck summarized this truth well when he wrote:
If Christian revelation, which presupposes the darkness and error of unspiritual humanity, submitted in advance to the judgments of reason, it would by that token contradict itself. It would thereby place itself before a tribunal whose jurisdiction it had first denied. (516)
How liberating that is! We don’t have to be defense attorneys for the Bible, lining up proof after proof of its inspiration in the hope of convincing the unbeliever that it can be trusted. All we need to do is proclaim it and teach it faithfully.
If we don’t have to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then how will people come to believe what it says? The Holy Spirit creates faith in a person, with which that person then responds in faith to God’s revelation. It is not simply an intellectual knowledge. This truth is borne out in the epistle to the Hebrews:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:1–3, NIV, emphasis added)
Faith itself is the assurance of what is hoped for and the certainty of what we don’t see. Thus, true knowledge of God is a faith-knowledge. We don’t become intellectually convinced of God’s existence or of a particular truth about him first and then believe solely on the basis of that intellectual conviction. If that were the case, it would no longer be faith. Faith presupposes that which it believes; it does not require proof to believe in its object. I’m not saying that faith is divorced from the intellect; the two go hand in hand. I am just not sure that faith depends entirely on the intellect’s being convinced that something is true. People can, and do, reject things that they know to be true, so convincing the intellect alone does not guarantee faith. There must be an inner assurance and conviction that the object of faith is true, and in the spiritual realm, that assurance and conviction come from the Holy Spirit.
Is faith voluntaristic or intellectualistic? Is faith a moral act of the will whereby we willingly receive what God has said because we want to do so, or is it primarily an intellectual act? If the former, then the unbeliever’s issue is not that he needs to be intellectually convinced that the Bible is divinely inspired. Rather, his real issue is his willful rejection of the Bible’s authority. The will must be changed before belief will occur.
———————
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Ed. John Bolt. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. 4 vols.
Like all spiritual topics, faith is not an easy concept to explain, being abstract. There are accounts in the Bible, however, of people who believed in Christ. These accounts give us valuable insights into the nature of true saving faith.
One of my favorite accounts of faith is recorded in the Gospel of Mark, when a sick woman encountered Christ:
And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. (Mark 5:25–29, NIV)
To appreciate this woman’s faith, we need to examine this passage in detail.
She had suffered for a long time: The text says that she “had been subject to bleeding for twelve years.” Twelve years! Can any of us imagine what it would be like to suffer with a continuous ailment for twelve whole years?
She had tried all human means to get healed: This account also tells us that not only had she “suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors” but also that she “had spent all she had.” In spite of various medical treatments—apparently painful ones—and exhausting all her money to find relief from her affliction, she only grew worse.
Given these facts, it is not hard to see that this was a woman at the end of her rope. She had tried the available means within her power to get healed, including money and medicine, and they had all failed her miserably. She now realized that there was nothing left for her to do but merely trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is no wonder that she thought to herself these words: “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Perhaps some time ago she might have scoffed at the thought of going to Jesus for healing, thinking, “I have enough money and more doctors to try; I don’t need this Jesus to heal me.” Now, however, she had no choice. She had nowhere to go but to the Lord.
It is important to note that the woman wanted merely to “touch” Christ’s garment. The thought to exert great effort to bring about her own cure did not occur to her. Why would it? She had already been through all that. Consequently, hers was not a hand that labored to create the solution, but a hand that simply reached out to take hold of the Savior.
In the spiritual realm, this is just what saving faith is like: to cease relying on our own efforts to be good and to simply cling to Christ alone, realizing that he is the only one who can make payment to God for our sins. All of our own attempts to be acceptable to God, relying on our own “righteousness,” are doomed to failure, as Isaiah pointed out:
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (NIV, emphasis added)
Have you come to the end of yourself after having tried countless times to be good, only to fail every time? If so, then I urge you to trust in Christ alone, as the sick woman did. All it takes is a “touch” to bring salvation. Or are you standing aloof from Christ, the only Savior that God has offered, still trusting in your own efforts to be righteous?
Reach out to Jesus and trust only in him, who alone can forgive us and cleanse us.
About the Author
The author of this blog, Jeremy (Jehanne), is a Catholic who strives to think God's thoughts after Him and obey Christ's exhortation to take up the cross daily and follow Him on the way to Golgotha. He likes reading theology, evangelizing, and, of course, writing.
Recent Comments