Sin and Foolishness
The following is an edited email correspondence related to Making, Keeping, and Breaking Promises (3).
I recently found your blog and started reading some of your commentary on Ephesians, and I have been edified and enlightened by your godly counsel. I pray that God continues to use your diligent work so powerfully in the lives of other believers.
I have a question I’ve been considering for a while, and since you made a certain comment in your latest post about promises, I wondered if you might briefly inform me. You say, "Then, some promises might not be outright sinful, but they are unwise."
Does this mean that someone can really make a foolish decision or action and not be in sin? Shouldn’t foolishness qualify as a failure to conform to God's commandment to love him with all of our minds? I’ve often thought that after I make a foolish (but not outright sinful) decision I should repent for it.
Thanks for your message.
Yes, I agree that many unwise decisions are also sinful, and all sinful decisions are necessarily unwise (e.g. Proverbs 6:32, 7:7; Ecclesiastes 7:25); however, I am uncertain that all unwise decisions are also necessarily sinful.
A sinful decision entails breaking an actual commandment. Now, the commandment to love God with all our minds is certainly a commandment, but what this commandment implies must be defined by the other parts of Scripture. Also, to love God with all our minds might not necessarily imply that we will never make any foolish decisions, just as to love God with all our body might not mean that we will never physically fail, or to have unlimited physical strength. Moreover, some individuals are naturally sharper than others about some of these things that we are talking about, but this does not automatically make them morally superior.
Thus to love God with all our minds does not imply that you must get a perfect score on every math test in your life (even as you seek to glory God in your school work), or that you are morally forbidden to make even foolish mistakes on those tests — failing to get a perfect score each time might be due to the noetic effects of sin, but might not be sinful in itself. (On the other hand, it would be sinful for you to neglect your studies and thus do poorly on the tests.)
Similarly, to love God with all our minds might not mean that we must be all-wise, but that we must use everything and every part in us to obey God's commandments. But this means we need an actual commandment against something like co-signing.
In this case, I am uncertain that it is justifiable (from how the Scripture describes it) to call co-signing a loan an outright sin. I think one's motive and knowledge must be taken into account here. If it is done out of plain defiance to Scripture, or out of a mindset that thinks it is wise when the Scripture says that it is not, then it is clearly sinful. But short of this, I am not sure, since the Bible does not clearly describe it as sin. At least on the superficial level, it is more of a practical issue than a moral one; however, many practical decisions involve moral motives, whether good or evil, and that’s why I say that this is true "on the superficial level."
Or, there might be a scenario where it is neither sinful nor unwise to co-sign — that is, if the person thinks of it as if he is taking on the whole loan, or as if he is taking out the loan himself, and in effect, as if he is directly lending the money to the person he is co-signing with. And since the person might be unable to pay (that's why he needs a co-signer in the first place), the co-signer should consider himself as practically giving the other person the money, never to be repaid again.
Now, if the co-signer is prepared to think of the transaction this way from the very beginning (but this is almost never what people have in mind when they co-sign), then for him there is no difference between co-signing and giving the money away. And if he can afford it, then it is his money to lose. There is no sin here, except if the situation is such that, it would be sinful for him to give that money away, or to give it to this particular person. Assuming that this is not the case, the passage from Proverbs does not exactly apply, since there Scripture is describing the unexpected effects of co-signing — the co-signer is foolish because he ought to expect those effects, namely, to be left with the whole responsibility to repay the loan.
So, I think you are right in principle, that many foolish actions are also sinful actions, but not always. Sometimes people commit foolish actions just because of their own limitations — that would be the noetic effects of sin, but not necessarily sinful in themselves. This distinction is important.
We must take the Scripture seriously, and thus we must take sin seriously. But taking sin seriously means that we must define sin very precisely and with good warrant, so that when we call something sin, we should have ample biblical justification to do so; otherwise, we risk becoming legalistic.
In this case, I am sure that some or even many instances of co-signing are sinful, and I would wonder why someone would still do it after reading that passage, but I don't think there is enough scriptural warrant to say that it is always sinful, as if it is like murder, adultery, or blasphemy.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Jeremiah Burroughs, The Evil of Evils
Ralph Venning, The Sinfulness of Sin
John Owen, The Mortification of Sin
Making, Keeping, and Breaking Promises (3)
(continued from the previous entry in this series)
Principle 5 is easy to explain and illustrate.
When it comes to what Scripture teaches about promises, one of the main questions people wish to settle is this: Is it true, as one would initially tend to assume, that you should always keep every promise you’ve made, no matter what it is? The answer is no, because some promises are nullified by a higher authority, and some are morally wrong to keep.
However, this does not automatically mean that you have not sinned in a situation where you must break a promise. In many cases, you have already sinned in making the promise in the first place, only that to keep the promise would be to commit another sin, and you cannot undo one sin by committing another one.
For example, if for some reason I promised to rob a bank for you or to murder someone for you, then of course I must not keep that promise. I have already sinned in making such a promise in the first place, and it would be an even greater sin to keep it.
Or, if you make a promise to someone in the name of your company when you have no authority to make such a promise, then you have already done wrong by making the promise, but it would also be wrong to keep a promise that you had no right to make. In this case, the company has prior claims over whether you could carry out the promise. In fact, to protect its reputation, which you have now jeopardized, it might honor your illegitimate promise anyway, but it is certainly not obligated to do so. In some cases, and when possible, the right thing to do might be to honor the promise with your personal resources.
God always has prior claims over every promise. Secondarily, some human authority figures may have prior claims over your promises, such as parents, husbands, fathers, pastors, and employers.
Nevertheless, it does not follow that you should always break every promise that you have no right to make. For example, for you as a Christian to marry an unbeliever would be a great sin, but it would be another great sin for you to divorce the unbeliever once you have married him. This is because although God preceptively opposes this sinful marriage, it is still God himself who oversees it, and what he has joined together, let no man put asunder (1 Corinthians 7:12–13; see also The Sermon on the Mount).
There are applicable principles in Scripture to every situation that you will face, and to every promise that you make. It will tell you what is right and what is wrong in each case, and even once you have done wrong, it will tell you the next step to follow.
Our discussion on principles 4 and 5 should not complicate things so much that principles 1–3 become obscured. In fact, principles 1 and 2 should be enough to guide most of your decisions about making and keeping promises — that is, don’t make rash or unnecessary promises (many promises are unnecessary — if you intend to do something, just do it), but once you’ve made a promise, keep it. There are exceptions, but exceptions are rare, although they can happen. Of course, then, the best thing to do is to avoid making promises that you have no right to make, or that you cannot or should not keep.
Then, some promises might not be outright sinful, but they are unwise, and the Bible says that you should beg to be released from them. One such example is when you co-sign someone’s loan:
My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, if you have struck hands in pledge for another, if you have been trapped by what you said, ensnared by the words of your mouth, then do this, my son, to free yourself, since you have fallen into your neighbor's hands: Go and humble yourself; press your plea with your neighbor! Allow no sleep to your eyes, no slumber to your eyelids. Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the snare of the fowler. (Proverbs 6:1–5)
Before he retired, my father’s profession had a lot to do with contracts, documents, and their ramifications. And ever since I was only several years old, he has repeatedly told me that I should never guarantee someone’s loan.
He was speaking from experience, but Scripture is the only true and reliable guide. Yet in this instance, my father did something that was scriptural, namely, he taught me this correct (and what seems to many an "adult") principle at a very early age. In Proverbs, the writer is teaching his child some of the basic lessons of living, and this is one of them — never guarantee someone’s loan, and if you have already done it, beg to get out of it.
It is never too early to warn your child against drunkenness, adultery, co-signing, and other things that unbelievers and irresponsible believers consider "adult" lessons. Start teaching your child these things when he is three or four, and repeat it a couple of times each month until he leaves home as a adult, and it just might stick.
In any case, from now on you should never be in a situation where you would need to be released from a guarantee, for why would you even consider co-signing someone’s loan after reading this passage? Just don’t do it. And if you insist on doing it, then be prepared to pay for the whole thing, for you have trapped yourself, and your family with you.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
John Murray, Principles of Conduct
Related (but inconsistent in quality):
Alexander Hill, Just Business: Christian Ethics for the Marketplace
Michael Zigarelli, Management by Proverbs: Applying Timeless Wisdom in the Workplace
Scott Rae, Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics
Wayne Grudem, Business for the Glory of God
Making, Keeping, and Breaking Promises (2)
(continued from the previous entry in this series)
Some passages in the Bible are intended as "case laws," similar to the idea of "precedence" in our legal system, so that their applications are not limited to the immediate context; rather, they set forth the principles upon which similar cases should be judged.
For example, Paul uses the law, "Do not muzzle an ox," as something like a case law and teaches from it the right of a minister to receive money from those to whom he ministers:
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? (1 Corinthians 9:7–11)
When it comes to principle 4, which is rarely taught, one of the relevant biblical passages is Numbers 30:1–16. It reads as follows:
Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
"When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.
"If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
"Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
"If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt."
These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.
This is directly applicable to Christians. And although the immediate context refers to "a vow to the LORD," the principles applies to all kinds of promises, since the entire passage is God’s command "concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house." So not only is it applicable, but it is even more obviously applicable than some of the case laws.
(Concerning the applicability of the OT law, please see my Commentary on Ephesians and The Sermon on the Mount. And for more on the authority structure in the home, please see my Commentary on Ephesians and Renewing the Mind.)
Let us apply the above to an example.
Suppose a relative or a friend of a married woman wishes to borrow money. The woman has no right to promise a loan without first asking her husband. If the woman nevertheless promises the loan and the husband is present, then he has the right to immediately nullify the promise. The husband has not sinned by nullifying the promise illegitimately made by the wife, and the wife would not sin by withholding the loan that she has initially promised, since the promise has been nullified by the husband. Yet, the wife has indeed sinned by making the promise without asking her husband. Now if the woman promises the loan and her husband is not present, then he has the right to nullify the promise once he hears about it, and the rest is the same.
But whether or not the husband is present when the woman makes the promise, if he says nothing once he hears about it, then it is as if he has given his approval and confirmed the promise. Both the husband and the wife are then morally obligated to make good the promise and grant the loan. However, if the husband changes his mind and decides to withhold the loan once he has explicitly or implicitly confirmed the promise, then he commits sin, and it is as if he has personally made and then broken the promise. In this case (that is, when the husband changes his mind after confirming the promise), the wife should obey the husband and withhold the loan — she does not sin by doing this, but the blame falls upon her husband. On the other hand, if the wife decides to make good the promise even after the husband has changed his mind, then both the husband and the wife commit sin — he sins by breaking the promise, and she sins by disobeying her husband.
As for the husband, he has the right to promise the loan without first discussing it with his wife; however, out of love and respect for his wife, to protect the trust and intimacy of the marriage relationship, and to maintain order in the home, it would be wise for him to discuss it with his wife anyway, and he should usually (practically always) make the promise only if they both agree to it. Yet, the final decision always rests with the husband.
Of course, feminists don't like this, but I don't like feminists, so we are even. But I am still right.
Note not only the tremendous authority of the husband, but also the tremendous responsibility that is placed upon him. It is up to him to assess whether or not the family can afford to offer the loan, as well as to determine all the likely spiritual, social, and financial consequences of making the promise. Whether or not he thinks that it is a good idea (and especially if he thinks that it is not a good idea), if he approves and confirms the promise made by the wife (or if he is the one who makes the promise), and then if severe hardship strikes the family because of the loan — since the needed money is not there — then, assuming that there is no moral justification for making the family undergo such hardship, the blame again falls upon the husband, not the wife.
It is true that some wives are better than their husbands at analyzing the family’s financial situation. In such cases, the husbands should acknolwedge this, and discuss the matter with their wives, and then make their decision. But whether or not they do this, they must make the final decision and assume the moral responsibility for it. They are the ones with the greatest authority in the home, but they are also the ones who are most accountable for what happens in and to their families.
We have used the marriage relationship and a loan in our example, but the principle applies also to the relationship between a father and a daughter, and regarding other types of vows and promises.
Also, notice that although we have used it to illustrate principle 4, this passage also addresses other individuals and relationships, such as a man, a widow, and a divorced woman. A full exposition of the passage should not neglect these.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind
Martha Peace, The Excellent Wife
Elizabeth Handford, Me? Obey Him?
J. David Pawson, Leadership is Male
John Piper, Wayne Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ
Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective
George W. Knight III, The Role Relationships of Men and Women
John Benton, Gender Questions
Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family
Kostenberger, Schreiner, Baldwin, ed., Women in the Church
Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God
Mary Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall
Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel
Mary Kassian, The Feminist Mistake
Richard Hove, Equality in Christ?
Daniel Doriani, Women and Ministry
Wayne Grudem, ed., Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood
Wayne Grudem, Dennis Rainey, ed., Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood
Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Biblical Womanhood in the Home
Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
Gordon Clark, The Pastoral Epistles
John Murray, Principles of Conduct
Wayne Grudem, Evangelism Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (not yet released)
Divine Power to Change Society
We ought to vote. We ought to be good citizens in every way. And we should cast our votes conscientiously and with discernment. But if your hope for the future of our society rests in the democratic process, or if you think the fortunes of the church rise or fall according to which party is in power, you need to look again at how the people of God have historically made their influence felt in society. You’ll discover that those times when the church has grown the most and when revival has spread furthest are times when believers have been most concerned about personal holiness and evangelism. The church’s real influence comes from the power of the gospel and the testimony of changed lives.
On the other hand, when influential Christians have tried to steer the church into the political process, their testimony has failed, and they have actually lost influence.
It’s no wonder. In Matthew 20:25–28 Jesus says, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
If the church is going to influence a hostile secular society like the one in which we live, political clout is not what we need. All the power, politics, and public policies in the world will never force unbelievers to yield their hearts to Christ as Lord.
Phil Johnson, "Let Your Light So Shine"
in Fool’s Gold, (Crossway, 2005; John MacArthur, general editor), p. 147.
Of course, there is really no need to "look again at how the people of God have historically made their influence felt in society" to make this point. (I also question the relevance and application of the biblical passage cited.) The Bible teaches as much, and that’s what matters. If the Bible does not say it, history cannot prove or confirm it.
There is no need to withdraw from the "democratic process," or to unnecessarily surrender political influence to the enemies of God; nevertheless, all the political power in the world can only produce superficial and temporary changes.
A real and lasting change in society is effected only when more and more individuals are regenerated by God’s sovereign grace, and the preaching of the gospel is the means by which God regenerates his elect. Therefore, the gospel is the power of God for salvation, and for real and lasting change in society.
Thus if we want to impact the world, we cannot do it through politics, (secular) education, science, or various social programs. Rather, we can do it only by following Paul’s command to "preach the word," patiently and persistently.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (ch. 2)
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things
Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy
Gordon Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education
Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You
Making, Keeping, and Breaking Promises (1)
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I have a question regarding what the Bible says about promises, such as what we should do with promises that we made before we became Christians, etc.
Here are several biblical principles:
1. Do not make rash or unnecessary promises.
2. If you have made a promise, keep it.
3. If the promise that you’ve made turns out to be disadvantageous to you, you should still keep it (Psalm 15:4).
The above are sufficient to cover many cases, if not most. But there are other biblical principles that cover additional situations and conditions:
4. There may be a person who is above you in authority that has the right to prevent you from making a given promise, or to annul it even after it has been made.
5. If a promise violates the Word of God (so that you should not have made it in the first place), then, depending on the nature of the promise and other relevant factors, there are times when you still have to keep it, while at other times, you are strictly forbidden to keep it.
Many people already know principles 1–3 and their biblical basis, so I will elaborate on only principles 4 and 5.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
John Murray, Principles of Conduct
Deistic Implications of Word-Faith Teachings
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
In context, the "Charismatic theology" mentioned below is not referring to just any Charismatic theology, but the "Word of Faith," "the health and wealth gospel," or the "name it and claim it" teachings, as espoused by people like Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin. (See How To Have Faith in Your Faith by Charles Capps, but then, see The Real Faith by Charles Price.)
I am thinking that the Charismatic theology leans toward deism. In their theology, the false doctrine of a self-willed salvation also extends to things like healing and prosperity. Not only does it deny the sovereignty of God, but it makes men equal with God, and agrees with the humanistic doctrine that men are the masters of their own fate.
That’s right. Very good.
The deistic implications of WOF doctrine are not always obvious even to its critics, so I am impressed that you notice it.
Even the doctrine of justification by faith has become for them the doctrine of "I will save myself by my faith." However, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is really teaching that we can do nothing by ourselves, that we must totally depend on Gracious Omnipotence to save us. Therefore, it is very proper to say that, by justification by faith, we are really not teaching salvation by faith as such — that is, not by some power inherent in human belief — but we are teaching salvation by Christ.
It is Christ who saves us, and not faith itself. Faith comes into the picture because it is Christ who saves us by means of giving us faith in him. It is right to say that we are saved "by faith" only if we understand it this way. Why then, does Scripture constantly affirm "justification by faith"? And why is it appropriate for us to use this expression? It is because in many places Scripture is contrasting justification by faith against justification by works, and it is appropriate for us to use this expression because we must continue to make such a contrast in our teaching, our thinking, and our living. However, we must keep in mind that "justification by faith" does not mean that the power to save is in the belief itself; rather, the saving power resides only in God, provided through Christ, and applied by faith.
As you observed, failing to acknowledge this simple distinction, some Charismatics have come to affirm a version of deism, at least in some parts of their theology. They think that God has set down some universal principles that one can operate at will once discovered. Then, Hagin draws the right inference from this false doctrine (that is, his false conclusion is the logical implication of the false doctrine), so that according to him, even unbelievers can use these "faith principles" to attain healing and prosperity. That is, if the power is in belief itself, then anyone can exercise the same power to attain the same things. To illustrate his point, Hagin even refers to the effect of a placebo to illustrate the inherent healing power of "faith."
That said, it is difficult to consistently charge them with deism, since they are not always consistent in their own teachings on the subject. On the one hand, they teach that anyone can tap into these principles or "spiritual laws" through belief; on the other hand, they affirm that God often acts mightily in response to belief.
Now, when we consistently apply the principle that divine power is in belief itself, it seems that even God’s divine power reside in and is exercised by belief, or faith. And this is exactly what the WOF teachers affirm. They fail to realize that biblical faith refers to a relationship between the one who believes and the one who is believed, so that the Christian judges God to be sufficient in power and faithful in character to carry out all his promises (Hebrews 11:11, 19).
Kenneth Copeland related an incident in which a person said to him, "God doesn’t have faith — he is the object of our faith." Apparently confused by the simple distinction, Copeland smirked and said, "He was too educated for me." And as far as we can tell, that is exactly right.
Recommended:
Pentecostalism and Cessationism
Ministry Spending and Favoritism
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians
Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing
D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit
John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos
The Practical and Existential in Evangelism
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
Is it always preferable to do evangelism using the approach taught in your Ultimate Questions, rather than appealing to the existential values and the practical advantages of coming to Christ?
In The Light of Our Minds (ch.1), I show that, technically speaking, apologetics and evangelism can be distinguished from each other, but they have such an intimate relationship that there is often no need to speak of them as separate and different, that is, unless we are involved in a discussion that requires greater precision, and thus the distinction.
With that in mind, Ultimate Questions is more about apologetics and philosophy than evangelism. (See Presuppositional Confrontations, ch. 2, where I blend together apologetics and evangelism.) The method espoused there is always the best way to do apologetics, since rationally speaking, your opponent can evade anything other than valid deductive arguments, often just by saying, "I don’t care," "That doesn’t prove anything," or "So what?"
But since most people are irrational, they often respond better to non-rational or irrational methods. For example, a personal testimony is often quite effective (at least in producing superficial effects in the hearers, but not in producing faith), although it doesn't really prove anything. Then, although the apostles mainly emphasized God’s grace and purpose, and man's need to repent and believe, they did mention some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ.
It depends on your audience as to the kind of effects that you can expect from non-rational or irrational approaches. If you were to argue that Islam is a false religion because it instructs its adherents to murder those who oppose it, this might carry weight with some people, but I would reject the argument right away, since I would realize that it is fallacious. It is logically invalid to assert that Islam is wrong because violence is wrong, but it should be the other way around — if Islam is right, then violence is right. If Islam truly reveals the mind of God, then whatever Islam teaches is true, including violence; but if Islam is wrong, then the violence that it teaches is unjustified. We cannot begin from the violence that it teaches to determine whether or not Islam is wrong.
Yet we encounter similar irrational arguments all the time — that is, the kind that puts things in the wrong order — and it is effective with many people. Sometimes this is because there is an innate knowledge of God and his moral laws in every person’s mind. Thus there is an instinctive moral opposition to murder. Some cultures or people groups may have suppressed this more than others, but then other parts of their innate knowledge is more evident with them. Because of this innate knowledge of God and his moral laws, even presentations that are not strictly valid (with conclusions deduced from established premises by logical necessity) are often effective, since they still appeal to something that is already innate in the hearers. That is, these invalid presentations might be applying some premise or information that the hearers already know, even as they try to suppress it in their minds. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should tolerate or encourage these invalid presentations.
But because people are irrational, they are often deceived by outright false premises and by false inferences, so that even arguments that are completely void of truth are often effective — arguments that are invalid and contradict both biblical revelation and man’s innate knowledge — that is, if it appeals to some sinful preference in the hearers.
One important effect of regeneration and sanctification is to rescue man from this stubborn and pervasive irrationality.
The deductive/presuppositional approach is always preferable in apologetics — it is the only rational route. And if you think about it, opportunities for evangelism often arise out of apologetic encounters — that is, from discussions in which the differences of worldviews generate disagreements.
Your Christian worldview will often generate disagreements with other people about politics, science, ethics (abortion, adultery, etc.), world religions…and just about everything. But if the deductive/presuppositional approach is always better in an apologetic encounter, and evangelistic opportunities often arise from the clash of worldviews, then the need for the deductive/presuppositional approach comes up just about every time you do evangelism. Even if the encounter begins from a non-argumentative presentation of the gospel, if someone has a question or objection (which is common), you are back at apologetics.
The deductive/presuppositional approach is a necessary part of preaching the gospel, since much of it involves presenting the teachings of the Bible, knowledge that is necessary for salvation. The apostles themselves employed deductive/presuppositional arguments in their preaching, to both believers and unbelievers. Reading the preaching of the apostles, some people can see only personal testimony, since they are predisposed to notice these things, but they don’t do a very good job even when relating their personal experiences. And of course, their personal experiences are nothing like the apostles’, who were with Jesus for several years, and who were with him in his death and resurrection.
Nowadays, when people talk about personal testimony, they often have in mind a feeling of ecstasy or exhilaration (which is not even conversion), a moral reformation (but they are still not very moral), even a vision or some other special experience (but the "gospel" they attach to it may not be biblical), or otherwise some silly story that doesn’t really contribute to the case for the gospel. Do not assume that someone is doing what the apostles did when he gives his personal testimony — it is usually nothing like theirs.
Then, if you present some sort of a pragmatic argument, so can the atheist, the Communist, the Mormon, and just about anybody from any belief system. That is, just about anybody from any belief system can relate what he considers a positive change in his life that resulted from that belief system.
Pragmatic arguments are logically worthless, although they are often psychologically compelling (the reason for this has been explained above). How rational is your audience? The more rational your audience, the more you risk being laughed at by using a pragmatic argument.
If a Buddhist says to me that Buddhism changed in his life, I would not challenge the claim — I would just laugh at him. It does not prove that Buddhism is true. Even a movie or a novel can change a person’s life or inspire moral reform, but it says nothing about whether or not the philosophy behind the movie or the novel is true.
An argument based on effect or personal experience works like this:
1. If X, therefore Y
2. Y
3. Therefore, X
This type of reasoning is called "affirming the consequent," which is always fallacious. But it is the exact reasoning process employed by every argument that appeals to the empirical and the pragmatic, and it is the very core of science. (See Bertrand Russell, "Is Science Superstitious?")
Jesus says that "you will know them by their fruit"; however, apart from biblical revelation, we cannot even specify what is a good fruit and what is an evil fruit. Of course Jesus knew this, and he was certainly not telling us to evaluate a person by our own non-biblical opinion.
Similarly, when you give a personal testimony about your faith, or when you enumerate some of the existential benefits of coming to Christ, the testimony and those benefits could be considered positive only because they are specified as such from the biblical perspective. So, rationally speaking, if the pragmatic and existential were to worth anything at all, they must still be derived from a biblical/deductive/presuppositional foundation, for by themselves, they are irrational and irrelevant.
Thus, although it is often acceptable to present your personal testimony or to discuss the existential benefits of coming to Christ, you must not attribute to these things a higher rational status than they deserve, and you must base them firmly on the foundation of biblical revelation, and discuss them only within such a context. You should give them relatively minor roles in your overall presentation, since in themselves they do not even present the gospel; they do not communicate the word of life, or the power that saves.
In short, it is best to preach the gospel through biblical expositions, clash with your opponent using the deductive/presuppositional approach, and then as optional illustrations (not as strict rational arguments), perhaps relate your personal experience and some of the existential benefits of faith.
Of course, these are not necessarily done in the above order, but they can be flexibly blended together in the course of your conversation with the unbeliever. In addition, one aspect of your presentation must not contradict another. For example, after you have completely destroyed the rational standing of induction, sensation, intuition, and science as part of your apologetic, do not then elevate your personal experience or self-knowledge to the undeniable rational certainty that can be attributed only to Scripture.
Finally, although non-rational or irrational approaches sometimes appear more effective because most people are irrational, it does not follow that we should tolerate this. In fact, as long as one’s faith is not mainly or only based on the biblical/rational, but on the personal, practical, or existential, that faith might even be spurious, or at least forever feeble. Part of our presentation, then, should be to challenge the irrational standards of our hearers. Why should they respond better to personal testimonies, or to practical or existential arguments, than to biblical/rational arguments? They should not, and this is precisely one of the things that we should get across while preaching the gospel and defending the faith.
Recommended:
http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html
http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Seeking.html
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Joel Beeke, Puritan Evangelism
Gordon Clark, Today’s Evangelism
Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel
A Great Cloud of Witnesses
The following deals with a question related to The Ching Ming Festival (2). I have numbered the paragraphs in the message from the reader so that you can more readily identify the corresponding sections in my response.
(1) What do you think about the popular belief that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses and the people in heaven are looking over the banister cheering us on or watching us?
(2) I asked one of my teachers if there is a possibility that my dad or other members of the family that have died saw me preach one of my first sermons. He said it is possible because we are the body of Christ and they are not really dead. They are in heaven alive and can see activity here on earth.
(3) I believe I heard a well-known theologian say that he gets nervous some times because he realizes that he is not just preaching to the congregation, but also a great cloud of witnesses, which is the body of Christ here on earth and in heaven.
What are your thoughts on this?
— 1 —
The biblical verse from which people derived this idea about "a cloud of witnesses" is Hebrews 12:1, which says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."
To correctly understand this verse and how it applies to our question, we should consider the sense in which these past believers are "witnesses" to our race. It is true that a "witness" often refers to someone who has had direct contact with a given subject of inquiry, and thus it appears to many people that for these past believers to be witnesses must mean that they are currently aware of our activities.
Some people even believe that these past believers are watching and hearing what we are doing, so that when we preach, they are actually listening to the sermon, and when we sin, they are actually watching.
However, this is not a necessary implication of the verse, and as we shall see, it is not even a probable interpretation.
Consider Matthew 12:41–42:
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
Jesus is addressing the Pharisees and the unbelieving people of "this generation," that is, the Jews.
The men of Nineveh will condemn the unbelieving Jews, not because they were direct witnesses of their unbelief, but because they (the men of Nineveh) repented at the preaching of Jonah.
And the Queen of the South (Sheba) will also rise to condemn the unbelieving Jews, not because she personally witnessed their unbelief, but because she came to hear Solomon’s godly wisdom.
Each of the above is a double a fortiori, in that (1) the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South were Gentiles, not Jews, so they lacked the spiritual privileges that the Jews had, and (2) Jesus was greater than both Jonah and Solomon. So, if an evil nation would repent at the preaching of Jonah, and if an foreign queen would come to hear the wisdom of Solomon, then how utterly strange and outrageous it was for the Jews, those entrusted with the oracles of God, to oppose the very Son of God? Thus the Jews were worthy of double condemnation.
But our focus is now on the "witnesses." They will condemn the unbelieving Jews not because of their knowledge about the Jews, but because of what they themselves did in contrast with the unbelieving Jews.
With this in mind, turn your attention back to Hebrews 12:1. The previous chapters give us the context that helps us to grasp the sense in which these past believers are witnesses to our race of faith.
Hebrews 10:32–39 says:
Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
The Jewish believers were experiencing pressure and persecution, and they were tempted to abandon their faith, and to return to their former profession. Weaving an intricate doctrinal treatise together with godly pleas and threats, the inspired writer of Hebrews admonishes them to maintain their faith.
Then, in Hebrews 11, the writer recounts numerous deeds performed by believers of previous generations, often against great danger and opposition. This is what it means to "live by faith" and not "shrink back."
It is clearly in this sense that these past believers are now "witnesses" to our own race of faith. They have already completed that which these Jewish believers were now tempted to give up, and now they serve as "witnesses" or testimonies to the promises of God and the power of faith. But "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect" (Hebrews 11:40), then let us not allow their lives to condemn us but rather encourage us to complete the race, looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (12:2).
So, the point is not, "You better run well because they are watching you," but rather, "Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart….Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees" (12:3, 12).
Applying this to our question, the verse (12:1) does not tell us whether or not these past believers know what is happening on the earth — that is, whether or not they do, this verse does not tell us. It tells us only about what we should now do in the light of what they had done. Relative to our question, there is no way to validly infer anything more from the verse than this.
— 2 —
Yes, it is possible that your father and other deceased family members saw you preach one of your first sermons, if this is what God had chosen to show them. But the reasons that your teacher gave are poor: "He said it is possible because we are the body of Christ and they are not really dead. They are in heaven alive and can see activity here on earth."
I am also part of the body of Christ and I am not really dead, yet I have never seen you preach, so this can’t be enough. Then, that they are "in heaven alive" does not imply that they "can see activity here on earth." If your teacher did not mean to connect the two, then he has given no reason at all as to why people "in heaven alive" "can see activity here on earth."
Now, there are passages like Luke 16:24–25 and Revelation 6:9–11.
Luke 16:24-25 says:
So he called to him, "Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire." But Abraham replied, "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony."
However, this passage does not tell us how and when Abraham knew about the rich man’s life. It does not say that Abraham knew this by watching and hearing the rich man’s life while the rich man was still alive. It is possible that the information was revealed to Abraham after the rich man's death. Either way, this passage does not tell us how he knew.
And Revelation 6:9–11 says:
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.
But again, the passage does not say that these martyrs were watching and hearing the activities on earth. Rather, the passage tells us that they were "watching" God and speaking to him about the earth. We cannot infer more than this from the passage.
— 3 —
He probably meant it to sound pious, but this is not impressive at all.
There is something wrong with a person who, if he is going to be nervous at all, is not already nervous enough because GOD is watching him, but because he thinks that dead people are watching him.
And is this not just another form of necromancy, a form of conscious and deliberate interaction with the dead, even if not as blatant and overt?
Biblical spirituality is "simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3, NASB). Many false biblical interpretations result from the desire to make spirituality more exciting, adventurous, and meaningful (from the carnal viewpoint), often by making it more esoteric and complicated. But the simplicity of biblical spirituality should more than satisfy the believer, that is, unless he has lost his first love.
Recommended:
Personality without Corporeality
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
Personality without Corporeality
In The Ching Ming Festival (1), I referred to two biblical passages to show that Samuel and Moses retained their personal identities even though they had died and were without their bodies. Here is the relevant portion of that article:
For example, Samuel appeared as Samuel to Saul after death but before the resurrection, and Moses likewise appeared as Moses to Christ, implying that personal identity is associated with the incorporeal soul without a necessary connection to the body. Then, Jesus said that we should not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul, as if the two are different and separate, and that the soul is more important. (See Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4–5; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 7:34; James 2:26.)
There was a question about whether these two passages are applicable.
That is, when King Saul went to the witch to conjure Samuel, it was said that she had a "familiar spirit." So it is assumed by some that she did not really have the ability to conjure up the dead, but that when she appeared to communicate with the dead, she was only communicating with this familiar spirit. Thus the question is whether it was really Samuel who appeared.
Then, some people think that the Bible never said that Moses really died, and so we do not know for sure whether he soul was ever separated from his body, or whether he was taken up like Enoch and Elijah.
The following is the response that I sent out in an email:
Actually, the Bible itself says that it was Samuel who appeared. Read the account in 1 Samuel 28. We have no reason to believe that it was not Samuel that appeared.
When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"
The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."
"What does he look like?" he asked.
"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
"I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."
Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors — to David. Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."
Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night. (v. 12–20)
As for Moses, the Bible itself says that he died (Joshua 1:2), and that Michael the archangel contended with Satan over the body (Jude 9).
Elijah did not die, or at least we have no evidence to believe that his soul was separated from his body, and that is why I did not cite him as an example, but it was appropriate to cite Samuel and Moses. They were living, thinking, and speaking — but disembodied.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
The Biblical Approach to Evangelism
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
Do you by chance have any books specifically focused upon missions and evangelism? I remember you mentioning that apologetics is a part of evangelism and was wondering if you had a more evangelism oriented work.
As you may have noticed by now, I am fond of addressing many topics by structuring my presentations around scriptural passages and skeletons.
Although I have commented on the different aspects of evangelism in various places, I have addressed evangelism mainly in my exposition of Acts 17, which you have probably already read. That chapter blends evangelism and apologetics (which are technically distinguishable, but often combined in practice) together in its discussion of the Mars Hill discourse. You might also want to read my short work, Preach the Word.
Evangelism should usually be done by preaching the whole counsel of God, instead of by the now common "hit-and-run" method. Evangelism is very much a "teaching" ministry (Matthew 28:19-20), so that when there is time, one must definitely follow Paul’s procedure in Acts 19:
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (v. 8–10)
As J. I. Packer writes in A Quest for Godliness: "Evangelism must rather be conceived as a long-term enterprise of patient teaching and instruction, in which God's servants seek simply to be faithful in delivering the gospel message and applying it to human lives, and leave it to God's Spirit to draw men to faith through this message in his own way and at his own speed" (Crossway, p. 163–164).
But when there is no time, or when the person is already sufficiently taught and informed, God might perform a quick work, as in Acts 8:26-39:
Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road — the desert road — that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."
The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
For more on this subject, you might look into the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and Puritan teachings on evangelism and "seeking" salvation through the means ordained and provided by God.
And of course, to preach the whole counsel of God, you need to know the whole counsel of God. Therefore, you must constantly be improving in your understanding of the biblical faith, and in your ability to clearly and precisely explain it.
Recommended:
http://www.intoutreach.org/seeking.html
http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Seeking.html
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Gordon Clark, Today’s Evangelism
Joel Beeke, Puritan Evangelism